USCA1 Opinion

      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION--NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]

                                

                 United States Court of Appeals

                     For the First Circuit

                                

                                







No. 97-1809



                          UNITED STATES,



                            Appellee,



                                v.



                          ANTHONY KING,



                      Defendant, Appellant.







           APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                 FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND



           [Hon. Francis J. Boyle, U.S. District Judge]







                              Before



                      Torruella, Chief Judge,

                 Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge,

                   and Stahl, Circuit Judge.

                                

                                





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

     Sheldon Whitehouse, United States Attorney, Margaret E.

Curran, Assistant United States Attorney, and Ira Belkin, Assistant

United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.











May 26, 1998







                                

                                

            Per Curiam.   Upon careful review of the briefs and

    record, we find no reason to overturn the sentence imposed by

    the district court.  

              1.   Pointing to the district court's remark that it

    had no "doubt that the Defendant now accepts responsibility,"

    defendant argues that the court found a sincere acceptance of

    responsibility and that nothing more is needed under comment

    n.4 to U.S.S.G.  3E1.1 to warrant a reduction.  However, the

    court effectively qualified the quoted remark by noting that

    defendant had agreed to plead guilty only after his attempt to

    obstruct justice failed.  In short, we believe that the

    district court reasonably noted the delayed onset of

    defendant's sincerity and acted within its discretion in

    denying a reduction.  

              2.   The adjustment for defendant's role in the

    offense was amply supported by the uncontested description of

    his activities in initiating and executing the scheme and in

    recruiting its participants.  

              3.   We perceive no abuse of discretion in the

    district court's decision that the federal sentence should be

    only partially concurrent with the prior state sentence.

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