[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________





        No. 97-1685





                                    UNITED STATES,



                                      Appellee,



                                          v.



                                     DAVID GELL,



                                Defendant, Appellant.



                                 ____________________





                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE



                     [Hon. D. Brock Hornby, U.S. District Judge]
                                            ___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                               Boudin, Stahl and Lynch,

                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________



                                 ____________________



            Thomas V. Laprade and Lambert, Coffin, Rudman & Hochman on brief
            _________________     _________________________________

        for appellant.

            Jay P. McCloskey, United States Attorney, Margaret D. McGaughey,
            ________________                          _____________________

        and Helene Kazanjian Assistant United States Attorneys, on brief for

        appellee.





                                 ____________________



                                   February 4, 1998

                                 ____________________

































                      Per Curiam.  We have thoroughly reviewed the record
                      __________



            on appeal and the submissions  of the parties, and we affirm.



            Since  the government's witness  at sentencing testified that



            he had purchased at least  five kilograms of cocaine from the



            appellant  during 1995  alone, and  that  appellant had  sold



            cocaine to the  witness on several other occasions, there was



            no  clear error  in the  sentencing  court's conclusion  that



            appellant  was responsible for  the distribution of  at least



            five kilograms.  United States  v. Lindia, 82 F.3d 1154, 1159
                             ________________________



            (1st  Cir.  1996)  (sentencing  court  must make  credibility



            determinations, and reviewing court will only set those aside



            for  clear  error).    It  is  apparent  from  the sentencing



            transcript and  from the sentencing court's written statement



            of reasons  that the court  relied on that evidence.   United
                                                                   ______



            States v. Van,  87 F.3d 1 (1st  Cir. 1996).  Thus,  the court
            _____________



            properly adopted  a  base offense  level of  32, pursuant  to



            U.S.S.G.   2D1.1(c)(4).



                 Affirmed.  Loc. R. 27.1.
                 _________



































                                         -2-