USCA1 Opinion

                         [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                         FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                         ____________________





No. 98-1030





                            UNITED STATES,



                               Appellee,



                                  v.



                          KENNETH MAMOORIAN,



                         Defendant, Appellant.



                         ____________________





             APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                   FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND



             [Hon. Ronald R. Lagueux, U.S. District Judge]



                         ____________________



                                Before



                        Torruella, Chief Judge,

                   Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges.



                         ____________________



    Robert B. Mann and Mann & Mitchell on brief for appellant.

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

Edwin J. Gale, Assistant United States Attorneys, on brief for appellee.





                         ____________________

                                  

                            April 9, 1998

                          __________________









      Per Curiam.  Upon careful review of the briefs and record,

    we conclude that the upward departure should be upheld based on

    under-representation of defendant's criminal conduct.  SeeU.S.S.G.  4A1.3.  In these circumstances, we need not

    determine the validity of any additional departure grounds, as

    we are convinced that excision of the challenged grounds would

    not have altered the sentence imposed.  See United States v.

    Brewster, 127 F.3d 22, 30 (1st Cir. 1997).

        We also conclude that the district court did not clearly

    err in denying an adjustment under U.S.S.G.  3B1.2 for

    defendant's role in the offense.  The finding that defendant's

    role was neither minimal nor minor was well supported by the

    information about defendant's multiple cross-country deliveries

    of large quantities of marijuana.

        Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.