April 26, 1994        [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ___________________


          No. 93-2086

            


                                MANUEL JIMENEZ-ISALE,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.


                                  __________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

                  [Hon. Juan M. Perez-Gimenez, U.S. District Judge]
                                               ___________________



                                 ___________________

                                        Before

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

                                 ___________________

               Manuel Jimenez-Isale on brief pro se.
               ____________________
               Guillermo  Gil,  United  States  Attorney,  and  Michael  E.
               ______________                                   ___________
          O'Hare, Trial Attorney, on brief for appellee.
          ______



                                  __________________

                                  __________________

















                 Per Curiam.   We have reviewed  carefully the record  in
                 __________

            this case,  the report  and recommendation of  the magistrate

            judge, the opinion and  order of the district court,  and the

            parties' briefs.  We  find no merit in appellant's  appeal of

            the denial of his petition  for habeas corpus relief pursuant

            to 28 U.S.C.   2255.

                 We  make only  two  remarks.   First,  a review  of  the

            transcript of appellant's change  of plea hearing makes clear

            that appellant "received 'real  notice of the true nature  of

            the charge against him,'" Henderson v.  Morgan, 426 U.S. 637,
                                      _________     ______

            645 (1976)  (quoting  Smith v.  O'Grady,  312 U.S.  329,  334
                                  _____     _______

            (1941)), and,  therefore, that his  plea was "voluntary  in a

            constitutional sense," id.   Second, inasmuch as the sentence
                                   __

            imposed upon  appellant was within the  statutory limits, the

            fact that it  was imposed by  a different judge from  the one

            who  sentenced  appellant's  coconspirator  "is  an  adequate

            explanation for  the disparity [in  sentences] and eliminates

            any possible appearance of vindictiveness."  United States v.
                                                         _____________

            Quejada-Zurique, 708 F.2d 857,  861 (1st Cir.), cert. denied,
            _______________                                 ____  ______

            464 U.S. 855 (1983).  

                 Affirmed.
                 ________











                                         -2-