(caption unavailable)

* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions
that have no precedential value and merely decide particular
cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes
needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal
profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined
that this opinion should not be published.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 92-2453
Conference Calendar
__________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
VICENTE GALLEGO-TABARES,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. CR-H-91-0126-02
- - - - - - - - - -
March 16, 1993
Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The presentence report (PSR) reflects a finding that Vicente
Gallego-Tabares (Gallego) was of roughly equal culpability with
the other defendants in this case. The sentencing court adopted
this finding, and Gallego never objected regarding this issue.
After reviewing the record, we find that the district court's
failure to find that Gallego was a minor or minimal participant
in the crimes for which he was convicted does not amount to plain
error. See United States v. Surasky, 974 F.2d 19, 20 (5th Cir.
1992). Gallego's first argument, therefore, lacks merit.

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 92-2453
-2-
Gallego also argues that the district court's reasons for
imposing his sentence are not adequate. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)
(district court must give reasons for choosing sentence within
sentencing range if range exceeds twenty-four months). In this
case, Gallego received a sentence of 151 months from a guideline
range of 121-151 months. The district court explained that it
imposed that sentence because of the presence of a firearm during
the commission of the crimes and because Gallego was involved
with another drug-trafficking and money-laundering group during
the same period as the commission of these crimes. After
reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court's
reasons for imposing the sentence do not amount to error, plain
or otherwise reversible.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --