USCA1 Opinion

                         [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                         FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                         ____________________





No. 96-2081





                            UNITED STATES,



                               Appellee,



                                  v.



               CARMELO RAMIREZ-VEGA, A/K/A TITO MORGAN,



                         Defendant, Appellant.



                         ____________________





             APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                    FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO



            [Hon. Daniel R. Dominguez, U.S. District Judge]



                         ____________________



                                Before



                         Boudin, Circuit Judge,

                     Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge,

                       and Lynch, Circuit Judge.



                         ____________________



    Edward E. Parson on brief for appellant.

    Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, Nelson Perez-Sosa, Assistant

United States Attorney, and Jose A. Quiles-Espinosa, Senior Litigation

Counsel, on brief for appellee.





                         ____________________



                           March 17, 1998

                         ____________________

                 Per Curiam.  Defendant-appellant Carmelo Ramirez-Vega

    appeals from his sentence imposed following a guilty plea to

    possession with intent to distribute (with two co-defendants)

    of two kilograms of cocaine.  Appellant's sole issue on appeal

    is that the court erred in imposing a two-level enhancement for

    his supervisory role in the offense under Section 3B1.1(c) of

    the United States Sentencing Guidelines.  He seeks to have his

    sentence vacated and remanded for a hearing on his role in the

    offense.

             The guilty plea was entered pursuant to a plea

    agreement under Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(e)(1)(B).  Appellant

    specifically agreed that he "had an aggravating role as a

    supervisor within the meaning of the Guidelines Section

    3B1.1(c) and that, therefore, the base offense level shall be

    increased by an additional TWO (2) levels."  At his sentencing

    hearing, appellant clearly stated that he did not wish to

    withdraw his plea.  Nor does he attack the validity of the plea

    on appeal.  Our careful review of the record reveals that there

    is ample support for the district court's finding that Ramirez

    had a supervisory role within the meaning of U.S.S.G. 

    3B1.1(c).

             Under these circumstances, the district court did not

    err in imposing a two-level enhancement for appellant's role in

    the offense.  Contrary to appellant's contentions, the district

    court clearly set forth the reasons for imposing the

    enhancement:  1) the plea agreement under which the sentence

    was imposed specifically provided for the enhancement and 2)

    there was factual support for the finding that appellant's role

    was supervisory.

        The information contained in the Presentence Report

    ("PSR") supported a finding that Ramirez "exercised control

    over, or was otherwise responsible for organizing the

    activities of, at least one other individual in committing the

    crime."  United States v. Akitoye, 923 F.2d 221, 227 (1st Cir.

    1991).  The PSR provided that Ramirez "was accompanied by

    [Acevedo] on more than one of the former's drug negotiations." 

    PSR, p. 6.  It further reported that 

        [a]ccording to the Assistant U.S. Attorney, [co-

        defendant Acevedo] was the one who either helped

        carry the cocaine, gave same to the buyer, and on

        other occasions, delivered or accepted payments for

        [Ramirez].  He had no decision making authority, nor

        was he knowledgeable as to the details of the

        negotiations or transactions.

    

    PSR, p. 7.  The PSR noted that Ramirez was "described as a

    leader."  Ramirez was often accompanied by Acevedo, but the

    latter "exercised no role other than that of helper." PSR, p.

    7.  "[F]actual averments contained in the PSI Report usually

    are deemed reliable enough to be used for sentencing purposes." 

    United States v. Brewster, 127 F.3d 22, 28 (1st Cir. 1997).

        The district court did not err in relying -- in part --

    upon information from a co-defendant's guilty plea and

    sentencing hearings, where appellant had the opportunity to

    respond to that information before his sentence was imposed. 

    Compare United States v. Berzon, 941 F.2d 8, 21 (1st Cir.

    1991).  Nor, under these circumstances, did the court abuse its

    wide discretion in failing to hold an evidentiary hearing to

    consider statements that appellant indicated would be provided

    by his co-defendants regarding his role in the offense.  "[T]he

    decision to hold an evidentiary hearing at the time of

    sentencing or, alternatively, to eschew such a hearing, lies

    within the sound discretion of the sentencing court."  United

    States v. Robles-Torres, 109 F.3d 83, 85 (1st Cir. 1997).

             Appellant's conviction and sentence are summarily

    affirmed. See Loc. R. 27.1.