February 3, 1995
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________


        No. 94-1742 

                                   SUBIR CHAKLADER,

                                Petitioner, Appellant,

                                          v.

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                Respondent, Appellee.


                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                     [Hon. Robert E. Keeton, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

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

                                 ____________________


            Subir Chaklader on brief pro se.
            _______________
            Donald  K. Stern,  United  States Attorney,  and Tobin  N. Harvey,
            ________________                                 ________________
        Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.


                                 ____________________


                                 ____________________























                 Per Curiam.  Pro se prisoner Subir Chaklader appeals the
                 __________

            denial of his  motion to  vacate, set aside,  or correct  his

            sentence under 28 U.S.C.  2255.   We have thoroughly reviewed

            the  record  and  the parties'  briefs  on  appeal.   We  are

            persuaded that Chaklader's motion was properly denied for the

            reasons stated in the  district court's memorandum and order.

            Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.
                                                               ________