[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT




                                 ___________________


          No. 93-1173

            


                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                    VITAL SAUANE,

                                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

                              Torruella, Selya and Cyr.
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ___________________

               David A. Cooper and Cooper & Sanchez on brief for appellant.
               _______________     ________________
               Edwin J. Gale,  United States Attorney,  Margaret E.  Curran
               _____________                            ___________________
          and  Lawrence D.  Gaynor, Assistant  United States  Attorneys, on
               ___________________
          brief for appellee.



                                  __________________
                                    July 27, 1994
                                  __________________



















                      Per Curiam.  Defendant contends that the government
                      __________

            breached  its agreement to recommend a prison sentence at the

            low end  of the "applicable sentencing  guideline range" when

            it recommended a  60-month sentence, the  statutory mandatory

            minimum penalty under 21 U.S.C.    841(b)(1)(B), instead of a

            46-month  sentence, the  bottom  of offense  level  23.   The

            government  did  not  violate  the  plea  agreement.    Under

            U.S.S.G.   5G1.1(b), "[w]here a  statutorily required minimum

            sentence  is  greater  than  the maximum  of  the  applicable

            guideline  range, the  statutorily required  minimum sentence
                              ___________________________________________

            shall  be the  guideline sentence."    (Emphasis added.)   In
            _________________________________

            other  words,   under  U.S.S.G.     5G1.1(b),  the  statutory

            mandatory minimum sentence  became the "applicable  guideline

            sentencing  range,"  a  "range"  consisting  of  one  number.

            Consequently,  in  recommending   the  statutorily   required

            minimum  sentence, the  government did  not violate  the plea

            agreement.   We note,  moreover, that the  government pointed

            out  at the plea hearing -- and the defendant acknowledged --

            that defendant faced a minimum five-year prison term.

                      Defendant  claims the  record  does  not show  that

            defendant  understood the  plea  agreement.   On the  present

            record,  we   disagree.     Defendant  was  assisted   by  an

            interpreter at the change of plea hearing.  Counsel indicated

            he had conferred with  defendant several times about pleading

            guilty  and had  discussed the  process with  him  at length.



                                         -2-















            Defendant stated that he had read, understood, and signed the

            plea  agreement, and he acknowledged that he was subject to a

            minimum of five years in prison.   He also said he understood

            that  the guideline  sentence could  not be  determined until

            after the pre-sentence report was completed.  On this record,

            defendant's claim  that, at the  time of pleading  guilty, he

            understood   he  would   receive  a   46-month  sentence   is

            unsupported.

                      Any  claim  of  ineffective assistance  of  counsel

            premised on counsel's having  promised a 46-month sentence or

            having  improperly coached defendant on how to respond at the

            plea  colloquy is not cognizable on direct appeal as it would

            require proof of  facts outside the  present record.   United
                                                                   ______

            States  v.  Mala, 7  F.3d 1058,  1063  (1st Cir.  1993) (fact
            ______      ____

            specific  claims  of ineffective  assistance of  counsel must

            first  be presented  to the  district court  -- usually  in a

            section 2255 petition -- before being considered on appeal).

                      We  have  fully  reviewed  the record  and  all  of

            defendant's  arguments  and  find  no basis  to  disturb  the

            judgment.  Appellant's  request for new counsel and  for oral

            argument are denied.

                      Affirmed.
                      ________









                                         -3-