[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________





        No. 97-1433



                                    UNITED STATES,



                                      Appellee,



                                          v.



                                   ROBERT A. SMITH,



                                Defendant, Appellant.



                                 ____________________





                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND



                       [Hon. Mary M. Lisi, U.S. District Judge]



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                 Selya, Circuit Judge,
                                        _____________

                           Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                     ____________________

                              and Lynch, Circuit Judge.
                                         _____________



                                 ____________________



            Van L. Hayhow on brief for appellant.
            _____________

            Sheldon  Whitehouse, United  States Attorney,  Margaret  E. Curran
            ___________________                            ___________________

        and Richard W.  Rose, Assistant United States Attorneys,  on brief for
            ________________

        appellee.





                                 ____________________



                                   October 10, 1997

                                 ____________________



































                 Per  Curiam.  We  have carefully reviewed  the briefs of
                 ___________



            the  parties  and  the  record  on  appeal,  and  we  affirm.



            Appellant  Robert Smith ("Smith")  challenges his sentence on



            bank fraud  charges.  He  claims the district court  erred in



            concluding he was an "organizer  or leader" of the bank fraud



            scheme, and so it erred in enhancing his sentence pursuant to



            U.S.S.G.   3B1.1(a).  We  give the district court's  findings



            "due deference" and reverse only  for clear error.  18 U.S.C.



              3742(e); United States v. Tejada-Beltran,  50 F.3d 105, 110
                       _______________________________



            (1st Cir. 1995).



                 No  clear  error  was  committed.    The  uncontroverted



            evidence at  sentencing showed  Smith decided  where to  make



            deposits and withdrawals  and when and how  much to withdraw.



            He accompanied  many of  the recruits to  the banks  and took



            physical possession  of the money.   He gave each  recruit 25



            per  cent of  the proceeds  and kept  the larger  portion for



            himself and  his three co-conspirators.  He recruited many of



            the  29  individuals whose  bank accounts  were used  for the



            scheme.   Thus,  Smith  exercised decision-making  authority,



            participated  heavily   in  the  ongoing   scheme,  recruited



            accomplices, claimed  a larger  share  of the  fruits of  the



            crime  (for  himself  and  his  three  co-conspirators),  and



            exercised  control  and  authority over  the  recruits.   See
                                                                      ___



            U.S.S.G.   3B1.1 n.4.











                                         -2-





























                 Smith's  counsel suggests  Smith took  instructions from



            other participants in  the scheme.  But there  is no evidence



            in the  record to  support  counsel's version  of the  facts.



            Even if this  evidence were present, the court  still did not



            commit  clear error in concluding Smith  was an "organizer or



            leader;"  ample evidence existed to satisfy the other factors



            listed in  the sentencing  guideline commentary.   The  court



            need  not  find  every  listed  factor in  order  to  find  a



            defendant  was  a "leader  or organizer."   United  States v.
                                                        _________________



            Preakos, 907 F.2d 7, 9 (1st Cir. 1990).
            _______



                 Affirmed.  Loc. R. 27.1.
                 _________































































                                         -3-