[NOT FOR PUBLICATION–NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]

United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

No. 00-1796

UNITED STATES,

Appellee,

v.

MICHAEL A. CASCIANO,

Defendant, Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[Hon. Richard G. Stearns, U.S. District Judge]

Before

Boudin, Chief Judge, Torruella and Lynch, Circuit Judges.

Howard M. Cooper, David H. Rich and Todd & Weld LLP on brief for appellant. Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney, and Jennifer Hay Zacks, Assistant U.S. Attorney, on Motion for Summary Disposition.

July 10, 2001 Per Curiam. Michael A. Casciano appeals from the

district court’s order revoking his supervised release and

imposing a sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment, followed by

two years’ supervised release. Casciano contends on appeal

that the district court clearly erred in determining that

the witnesses who testified against him at his revocation

hearing were credible when they stated that Casciano

threatened them. The government has filed a Motion for

Summary Disposition, pursuant to Loc. R. 27(c).

This court reviews the district court’s decision

to revoke supervised release for abuse of discretion, while

the underlying finding that Casciano violated a term of

supervised release is reviewed for clear error. See e.g.,

United States v. Whalen,

(1st Cir. 1996).

The government has the burden of proving by a preponderance

of the evidence that at least one of the conditions of the

defendant's supervised release was violated. United States

v. Portalla,

(1st Cir. 1993).

"Credibility determinations by the trier of fact

are accorded special deference," United States v. Bouthot,

, 1514 n. 8 (1st Cir. 1989), particularly

-2- because only the trial court can judge a witness's demeanor

or tone of voice, see United States v. Carty,

(1st Cir. 1993) (citing Anderson v. Bessemer City,

,

,

(1985)).

Where there are two permissible views of the evidence, the

factfinder’s choice between them cannot be clearly

erroneous. United States v. Marrero-Rivera,

(1st Cir. 1997). Moreover, on appeal of a revocation of

supervised release, we consider the evidence in the light

most favorable to the government. See Portalla,

.

Upon a careful review of the record, we cannot hold

clearly erroneous the district court’s decision to credit

Watson’s and Riopelle’s testimony that Casciano threatened

them. The inconsistencies complained of by Casciano on

appeal are merely variations in degree of detail the

witnesses gave to the various police officers who questioned

them. Both witnesses testified that they gave explicit

detail about the incident when asked to elaborate by

authorities. Both witnesses consistently reported that

Casciano had threatened them using obscenities.

Accordingly, we conclude that the district court

did not clearly err in finding that Casciano had made a

-3- criminal threat, resulting in a violation of a condition of

supervised release, and did not abuse its discretion in

deciding to revoke supervised release.

The Government’s Motion for Summary Disposition is

granted. Casciano’s sentence is affirmed. See Loc. R.

27(c).

-4-