[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]


                           UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                ____________________



       No. 96-2303 


                                   UNITED STATES,


                                      Appellee,


                                         v.


                             SINH VAN TA, A/K/A AH SINH,


                                Defendant, Appellant.


                                ____________________



                    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS


                   [Hon. Douglas P. Woodlock, U.S. District Judge]


                                ____________________


                                       Before


                               Torruella, Chief Judge,

                          Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges.


                                ____________________


            Paul M. Yee on brief for appellant.

            Donald K.  Stern, United States  Attorney, and Kevin  P. McGrath,

       Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.



                                ____________________


                                   April 11, 1997

                                ____________________








                 Per 
                    Curiam. 
                            
                            Upon 
                                 careful review of the briefs and record,


            we  perceive   no  clear  error   in  the  district   court's


            determination that the  2-level adjustment  under U.S.S.G.  S


            3B1.1(c) should apply to  appellant.  The determination  that


            appellant 
                     managed 
                            at 
                               least one of his co-defendants in the drug


            transactions 
                        was 
                           adequately supported by the facts presented to


            the district court.   The district court was not required  to


            adopt 
                 appellant's interpretation of those facts, and, further,


            even 
                if 
                  appellant 
                            himself were subject to management by others,


            the S  3B1.1(c) adjustment was  applicable nonetheless.   See


            United States v. Andujar, 49 F.3d 16, 25 (1st Cir. 1995).


                 Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.






























                                         -2-