UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.
                                                                    No. 99-4852
JUAN PABLO GONZALEZ, a/k/a
Ruperto German Gonzalez Rosete,
a/k/a Chevello,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia.
Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge.
(CR-99-288)

Submitted: June 30, 2000

Decided: September 20, 2000

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

J. Preston Strom, Jr., STROM & YOUNG, L.L.P., Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellant. Cameron Glenn Chandler, Assistant United
States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Juan Pablo Gonzalez appeals his sentence, following a guilty plea,
to fifty-seven months imprisonment for his role in a marijuana distri-
bution conspiracy. His counsel has filed a brief in accordance with
Anders v. California, 

(1967), stating that there are no
meritorious issues, but asserting that: (1) the court erred in imposing
an increase in Gonzalez's offense level for his role in the offense pur-
suant to USSG § 3B1.1 (1998), and (2) the court erred in declining
to apply a reduction to his offense level pursuant to the safety valve
provision, USSG § 5C1.2 (1998). Gonzalez was informed of his right
to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has not done so. The Gov-
ernment declined to file a brief. Our review of the record reveals no
error.

The district court's factual determinations regarding a defendant's
role in the offense are reviewed for clear error. See United States v.
Sarno, 

, 622-23 (4th Cir. 1994); United States v.
Daughtrey, 

, 217 (4th Cir. 1989). In deciding whether
to apply an enhancement based on the defendant's role in the offense,
the court considers several factors including, among others, the defen-
dant's recruitment of accomplices, the degree of control exercised
over other conspirators, and the claimed right to a larger share of the
offense proceeds. See United States v. Rhynes, 

, 383 (4th
Cir. 1999) (en banc), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 

,
622949, 626304 (U.S. June 5, 2000) (Nos. 99-9386, 99-9393, 99-
9458). Here, there was evidence that Gonzalez recruited an inter-
preter, directed another conspirator's drug deliveries, and received
proceeds from fronting marijuana to a seller. He also participated in
price negotiations. Although it was clear that two other individuals
were the leaders of the conspiracy, Gonzalez exercised some supervi-
sory responsibility. Thus, the district court did not clearly err in
applying the two point enhancement for his role in the offense. See
USSG § 3B1.1(c).

                    2
As the district court correctly noted, a defendant who is subject to
an increase in his offense level based on his role in the offense is not
eligible for the safety valve reduction. See USSG § 5C1.2(4). Accord-
ingly, Gonzalez was not entitled to a two point safety valve reduction.

We have reviewed the record and find no other potentially merito-
rious claims. Accordingly, we affirm Gonzalez's conviction and sen-
tence. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of
his right to petition the Supreme Court for further review. If the client
requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a peti-
tion would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave
to withdraw from further representation. Counsel's motion must state
that a copy thereof was served on the client. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pre-
sented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                     3