September 26, 1995

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT











                                 ____________________





        No. 94-2236



                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,



                                          v.



               JOSE ORTIZ-PEREZ A/K/A JOSE PEREZ, A/K/A JOHNNY RENDON,

                                  A/K/A MARIO LOPEZ

                                Defendant, Appellant.





                                 ____________________



                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND





                       [Hon. Mary M. Lisi, U.S. District Judge]
                                           ___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Selya, Stahl and Lynch,

                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________



                                 ____________________



            Ralph J. Perrotta on brief for appellant.
            _________________

            Sheldon Whitehouse, United State Attorney, Margaret E. Curran  and
            __________________                         __________________

        Michael P. Iannotti, Assistant United  States Attorneys, on brief  for
        ___________________

        appellee.





                                 ____________________



                                 ____________________



































                 Per Curiam.  On May 4,  1994, appellant Jose Ortiz-Perez
                 __________



            was  indicted on one  count of reentering  the United States,



            after   having  been   deported,   without  having   obtained



            permission to reenter from the Attorney General, in violation



            of 8 U.S.C.   1326.  On June 6, 1994, he moved to dismiss the



            indictment.  While Ortiz-Perez  concedes that his reentry was



            illegal, he claims that  the government misled him concerning



            his  right to reenter  and therefore should  be estopped from



            prosecuting him  for his illegal  reentry.  After  the motion



            was  denied, Ortiz-Perez  entered  an unconditional  plea  of



            guilty.  He  now appeals the denial by the  district court of



            his motion to dismiss.



                 This court has held  "with monotonous regularity that an



            unconditional guilty plea effectuates a waiver of any and all



            independent  non-jurisdictional lapses  that may  have marred



            the  case's progress up to  that point, thereby absolving any



            errors in  the trial  court's antecedent rulings  (other than



            errors that  implicate the  court's  jurisdiction)."   United
                                                                   ______



            States  v.  Cordero,  42  F.3d  697,   699  (1st  Cir.  1994)
            ______      _______



            (citations omitted).   A claim of estoppel is  an affirmative



            defense, not a  challenge to the court's  jurisdiction.  Fed.



            R.  Civ. P.  8(c).  Therefore,  by entering  an unconditional

















































            plea of guilty,  Ortiz-Perez has waived  any right to  appeal



            thedistrictcourt'sdenial ofhismotiontodismiss theindictment.1



                 The  government's  motion   for  summary  affirmance  is



            granted.  See 1st Cir. R. 27.1.
            _______   ___

















































































                                
            ____________________



            1.  Even if appellant's  claim had not been waived,  we would

            find it to be without merit.



                                         -3-