June 16, 1995         [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT



                              _________________________



          No. 95-1162



                                     PAUL LITTLE,



                                Petitioner, Appellant,



                                          v.



                      MICHAEL CUNNINGHAM, WARDEN, ETC., ET AL.,



                               Respondents, Appellees.



                              _________________________



                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE



                [Hon. Martin F. Loughlin, Senior U.S. District Judge]
                                          __________________________



                              _________________________



                                        Before



                                Selya, Circuit Judge,
                                       _____________



                           Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                     ____________________



                               and Cyr, Circuit Judge.
                                        _____________



                              _________________________



               Paul  J. Twomey, with whom Twomey & Sisti Law Offices was on
               _______________            __________________________

          brief, for appellant.

               Joseph  N. Laplante, Assistant  Attorney General,  with whom
               ___________________

          Jeffrey R. Howard, Attorney General, was on brief, for appellees.
          _________________



                              _________________________



                              _________________________









































                    SELYA, Circuit Judge.  Petitioner-appellant Paul Little
                    SELYA, Circuit Judge.
                           _____________



          asked  the federal  district court  to invoke  its habeas  corpus



          powers, 28 U.S.C.     2241-2254 (1988), and set aside  a sentence



          imposed in a New Hampshire state court.



                    The  historical  facts  are  largely  undisputed.   The



          parties entered into  an agreement  for a "naked  plea," i.e.,  a
                                                                   ____



          guilty  plea  that  would  merit  a  mutually  agreed  sentencing



          recommendation by  the prosecutor without purporting  to bind the



          sentencing  court  to  accept  the  recommendation.    The  state



          initially  failed  to  make  the agreed  recommendation  and  the



          superior court levied a more severe sentence.  On appeal, the New



          Hampshire  Supreme Court  vacated the  sentence.   Petitioner was



          resentenced before a  different judge, and  a prosecutor who  was



          new  to the  case  represented the  state  at resentencing.    In



          petitioner's  view, she  gave  mere lip  service  to the  state's



          promise and thereby  deprived petitioner    who again received  a



          stiffer sentence  than the state  had agreed to suggest    of due



          process.    When petitioner  appealed,  the  state supreme  court



          refused to set the sentence aside.  This habeas corpus proceeding



          followed.  The gravamen  of Little's petition is his  charge that



          the  state, having  agreed  to recommend  a specific  sentence in



          exchange for petitioner's guilty  plea, effectively subverted the



          bargain.



                    We share  petitioner's major premise:   the Due Process



          Clause  proscribes  not  only   the  explicit  repudiation  of  a



          prosecutor's assurances  to the defendant, but  also forbids end-





                                          2



























          runs  around those  assurances.    See,  e.g., United  States  v.
                                             ___   ____  ______________



          Canada,  960 F.2d 263, 269-70  (1st Cir. 1992);  United States v.
          ______                                           _____________



          Brown, 500 F.2d  375, 377-78  (4th Cir. 1974);  United States  v.
          _____                                           _____________



          Voccola, 600  F. Supp.  1534, 1537  (D.R.I. 1985); see  generally
          _______                                            ___  _________



          Santobello v. New  York, 404 U.S. 257, 262 (1971).   We disagree,
          __________    _________



          however, with  petitioner's conclusion  that  the state  violated



          this tenet on resentencing.



                    We will not tarry.  The district court, in a thoughtful



          rescript,  declined to issue the writ.  See Little v. Cunningham,
                                                  ___ ______    __________



          No.  C-94-523-L (D.N.H.  Dec.  29,  1994).   We  have  previously



          stated, and today reaffirm, that when a district judge produces a



          well-reasoned  opinion   that  reaches  the   correct  result,  a



          reviewing tribunal should not  rush to write at length  merely to



          put  matters in its own words.   See, e.g., In re San Juan Dupont
                                           ___  ____  _____________________



          Plaza  Hotel Fire Litig., 989 F.2d 36, 38 (1st Cir. 1993).  So it
          ________________________



          is here.  Consequently, we affirm  the district court's dismissal



          of petitioner's habeas application for  substantially the reasons



          set forth in that court's rescript.



                    We add  only a decurate comment.   The jurisprudence of



          habeas  corpus  demands that  a  federal  court cede  substantial



          deference  to the state courts' subsidiary findings of fact.  See
                                                                        ___



          28 U.S.C.   2254(d)  (stipulating presumption of correctness that



          attaches  to  state  court  findings of  fact  in  federal habeas



          proceedings);  see also  Miller v.  Fenton, 474 U.S.  104, 112-15
                         ___ ____  ______     ______



          (1985).   The  issue that  petitioner raises  here    whether the



          second  prosecutor, although mouthing  the agreed recommendation,





                                          3



























          simultaneously subverted it    is peculiarly fact-sensitive.  The



          record,   interpreted  one   way,   is   capable  of   supporting



          petitioner's view.   But interpreted  another way, the  record is



          equally  capable of supporting the  state courts' findings.  Both



          interpretations  are  reasonable.    Neither   interpretation  is



          compelled.  That ends the matter:   where, as here, the record in



          a  habeas  case  supports  plausible  but  conflicting  factbound



          inferences, we think  that the state courts' choice  between them



          is  entitled to  the presumption  of correctness.   See  Neron v.
                                                              ___  _____



          Tierney,  841  F.2d  1197,  1200  (1st  Cir.)  (holding  that the
          _______



          presumption  of correctness  "attaches  in full  flower" where  a



          state court's  factual determinations are  "`fairly supported  by



          the record'") (quoting 28 U.S.C.   2254(d)(8)), cert. denied, 488
                                                          _____ ______



          U.S. 832 (1988).



                    We need go no further.  The judgment below must be







          Affirmed.
          Affirmed.
          ________









































                                          4