February 14, 1994 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ___________________




          No.  92-1747


                                    UNITED STATES,
                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                 SAMSON O. AGBOSASA,
                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                                     ERRATA SHEET

               The opinion  of this court  issued on February 11,  1994, is
          amended as follows.

               Page 2,  line 25,  please insert  after  the word  defendant
          "gave did not implicate defendant in the filing".








































          February 11, 1994     [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ___________________


          No. 92-1747

            


                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                 SAMSON O. AGBOSASA,

                                Defendant, Appellant.


                                  __________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND


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

                                 ___________________

                                        Before

                                 Breyer, Chief Judge,
                                         ___________
                          Boudin and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________

                                 ___________________

               Francis R. Williams on brief for appellant.
               ___________________
               Edwin  J. Gale,  United  States  Attorney,  and  Charles  A.
               ______________                                   ___________
          Tamuleviz,  Assistant  United  States  Attorney,  on   brief  for
          _________
          appellee.



                                  __________________

                                  __________________



















                      Per Curiam.    The defendant, in the course  of being
                      __________

          arrested  and  booked in  connection  with fraudulent  income tax

          claims, was asked  routine booking question including  his social

          security number.   He gave a false one and, despite his effort to

          suppress the statement, was charged  and convicted of deceptively

          misrepresenting his social security number.  

                      We find no merit in  defendant's argument that asking

          defendant  his  social security  number  "related directly  to an

          element  of  the crime  the  agents  had reason  to  suspect" and

          therefore  was  "designed  to  elicit  incriminatory  admissions"

          within the meaning  of Pennsylvania v.  Muniz, 496 U.S. 582,  602
                                 ____________     _____

          n.14 (1990).  When defendant was  arrested at the post office, he

          was  suspected of  involvement  in the  submission  of false  tax

          refund claims in the names of Micheal M. Lerner and Jose A. Silva

          in  violation of 18  U.S.C.   287.   So far  as appears, however,

          defendant did not  represent himself to be Lerner  or Silva or to

          have their social security numbers.  Instead, after being advised

          of his Miranda  rights, defendant denied  the post office box  to
                 _______

          which  the decoy refund checks had been sent was his, claimed the

          box belonged to a friend, and said he did not know anything about

          the  refund checks.  Consequently, by  the time the IRS agent and

          deputy marshal asked  defendant his social security  number, they

          would not have  reasonably expected that question, or its answer,

          to implicate defendant  in the offenses then  under investigation

          (the filing  of false  income tax claims).   In fact,  the answer


                                         -2-














          defendant  gave did not  implicate defendant in  the filing false

          income  tax  claims  charges.    Instead, defendant  committed  a

          completely separate offense   -- giving  a false social  security

          number with intent to deceive, 42 U.S.C.     408(g)(2)(1988).

                      Nor was asking  defendant his social security  number

          designed  to   goad  defendant   into  violating   42  U.S.C.    

          408(g)(2)(1988).  There  is no evidence  the IRS agent or  deputy

          marshal knew defendant was an illegal  alien, 20 C.F.R.   422.104
                                        _______

          (indicating  that  certain  legal  aliens  may  obtain  a  social

          security number), and,  in any event, had defendant  answered the

          question truthfully, he would have  neither implicated himself in

          the  offenses  then  under  investigation  (filing  false  refund

          claims) nor violated 42 U.S.C.   408 (g)(2)(1988).  

                      Finding  no   merit  in   defendant's  argument,   we

          summarily affirm the judgment below.  Loc. R. 27.1.
























                                         -3-