United States v. Tavares

Opinion

USCA1 Opinion

July 8, 1996

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________


No. 95-1403


UNITED STATES,



                                      Appellee,



                                          v.



                                   RAFAEL TAVARES,



                                Defendant, Appellant.



                                 ____________________


APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS



                      [Hon. Patti B. Saris, U.S. District Judge]
                                            ___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Selya, Cyr and Boudin,

                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________



                                 ____________________



            Ronald Ian Segal on brief for appellant.
            ________________

            Donald K. Stern,  United States  Attorney, Paula J. DeGiacomo  and
            _______________                            __________________

        George  W.  Vien, Assistant  United  States  Attorneys,  on brief  for
        ________________

        appellee.


____________________


____________________


Per  Curiam.     Defendant  pled  guilty  and   was
                      ___________



sentenced to a six-year term of  imprisonment for a violation



            of 21 U.S.C.    846.  On appeal he argues  for the first time



            that the district court erred in permitting the government to



            point out  an error  in the presentence  investigation report



            (PSI) after the time for doing  so pursuant to Fed. R.  Crim.



            P. 32(b)(6)(B)  had passed.   This objection not  having been



            made below, it is reviewed for plain error only.  See  United
                                                              ___  ______



            States  v. Peppe,  80 F.3d  19, 22  (1st Cir.  1996).   After
            ______     _____



            careful review of the  parties' briefs and the entire  record



            below,  we find  no  error.   Pursuant  to Fed.  R.  Crim. P.



            32(b)(6)(D),   the  district  court  had  the  discretion  to



            consider at the time of sentencing the government's objection



            to  the  PSI's  manifestly  mistaken reference  to  grams  of



            cocaine rather than kilograms.  Based on the entire record of



            sentencing,  which  reveals   the  defendant   unquestionably



            accountable  for up to 100  kilograms of cocaine,  we find no



            abuse of discretion in  the district court's implicit finding



            of good cause to allow the government's tardy objection.



                      Affirmed.  See Loc. R. 27.1.
                      ________   ___


-3-