“desired” factual finding is that she was not involved in a conspiracy with the Chita’s Colombian contacts. We do not believe, however, that such a finding is the “only one rationally supported by the record below.” Rather, the non-hearsay evidence presented at trial makes it plausible that Díaz-Pérez was involved in a conspiracy to distribute cocaine. In fact, Count One of the Indictment charged both defendants with “aiding and abetting each other, and others to this Grand Jury unknown.” Additionally, while the tape recordings between Chita and his Colombian contacts do not mention Díaz-Pérez by name, the Colombian contacts did indicate that the informant would be contacted by a female schoolteacher in Puerto Rico. See United States v. Ortiz, 966 F.2d 707, 716 (1st Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 1005, 122
holding that the district courts finding of no discrimination was not clearly erroneous because the finding was supported by the record holding that the district courts finding of no discrimination under title vii was not clearly erroneous because the finding was supported by the record holding that although there was evidence of discrimination based on race there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of constructive discharge holding that a finding of no plain error on direct appeal precludes a finding of prejudice under strickland holding that there was no plain error in district courts failure to make an unrequested petrozziello finding because enough evidence existed to support a finding based on a preponderance of the evidence that the codefendants were participating in a conspiracy at the time the statements were made