July 22, 1996         [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT



                                                     
                                 ____________________



        No. 95-1130



                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,



                                      Appellee,



                                          v.



                                JUAN VELEZ-HERNANDEZ,



                                Defendant, Appellant.



                                                     
                                 ____________________





                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO



                    [Hon. Jos  Antonio Fust , U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________



                                                     
                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                               Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                          ___________



                            Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                    ____________________



                               and Cyr, Circuit Judge.
                                        _____________



                                                     
                                 ____________________







             Francisco Serrano Walker on brief for appellant. 
             ________________________

             Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, Jos  A. Quiles-Espinosa,
             _____________                          _______________________

        Senior Litigation Counsel, and Juan A. Pedrosa, Assistant United
                                       _______________

        States Attorney, on brief for appellee.





                                                     
                                 ____________________





                                                     
                                 ____________________































                    Per Curiam.  Defendant Juan Velez-Hernandez appeals the
                    Per Curiam.
                    __________



          sentence  imposed  following his  guilty  plea  to one  count  of



          conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine  under 21



          U.S.C.    841(a)(1), 846.   Velez claims that the  district court



          erroneously  ruled that the  government did  not breach  the plea



          agreement  by  failing  to  recommend a  downward  departure  for



          "substantial assistance."   See 18 U.S.C.    3553(e); U.S.S.G.   
                                      ___



          5K1.1.  We affirm.



                    Under his  plea agreement,  Velez promised  to continue



          truthfully  to  disclose to  the government  accurate information



          related  to  all   unlawful  activities  in  which   he  and  his



          collaborators were  involved, and to  refrain from  "commit[ting]



          any offense."   The government  in turn promised  to recommend  a



          downward departure  for "substantial  assistance" pursuant to  18



          U.S.C.   3553 and U.S.S.G.   5K1.1.  



                    Several months after entering  into the plea agreement,



          Velez was arrested on a new charge, as a felon in possession of a



          loaded  firearm,  see 18  U.S.C.    922(g)(1),  to which  he pled
                            ___



          guilty.   Thereafter, Velez  provided further information  to the



          government about the earlier cocaine conspiracy, which he had not



          disclosed  as required by the plea agreement.  At sentencing, the



          government  declined  to  move  for  a  "substantial  assistance"



          departure,   citing   Velez'   deliberate   withholding   of  the



          information  relating  to  the  cocaine   conspiracy,  in  direct



          violation of the  plea agreement.   The  district court  rejected



          Velez'  claim  that he  had  forgotten  the omitted  information.





                                          2



























          Additionally,   the   district  court   determined   that  Velez'



          commission of a subsequent offense violated the plea agreement as



          well.  Accordingly, the court ruled that the government had acted



          in  good faith and that Velez' conduct relieved the government of



          any obligation to recommend a   5K1.1 downward departure. 



                    We need not discuss the Velez challenge to the district



          court's  ruling insofar as it depended on the failure to disclose



          all information relating to his unlawful activities involving his



          collaborators, since Velez' failure to refrain from "commit[ting]



          any offense" inarguably constituted a material breach of the plea



          agreement  sufficient  to  warrant  the  government's refusal  to



          recommend a downward departure for substantial assistance. 



               Affirmed.
               Affirmed.
               _________

























































                                          3