June 5, 1996

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________







        No. 95-1383

        No. 95-1941



                                    UNITED STATES,



                                      Appellee,



                                          v.



                                ANTONIO MEDINA PUERTA,



                                Defendant, Appellant.





                                 ____________________



                    APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS



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



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                 Selya, Cyr and Lynch,

                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________



                                 ____________________



            Antonio Medina Puerta on brief pro se.
            _____________________

            Donald K.  Stern, United States  Attorney, and  Timothy Q. Feeley,
            ________________                                _________________

        Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.





                                 ____________________





                                 ____________________









                 Per Curiam.  Appellant Antonio Medina Puerta appeals the
                 __________





























            denial by the district court of his motions for  a new trial,



            pursuant to  Fed. R.  Crim.  P. 33,  on  the basis  of  newly



            discovered evidence,  and for  a correction of  his sentence,



            pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 35.  We affirm  the decisions of



            the district court.



                 Having carefully  reviewed the  record in this  case, we



            find  no  abuse of  the  district court's  discretion  in its



            implicit  determination that  the allegedly  newly discovered



            evidence presented by appellant was of insufficient weight to



            sustain his burden of showing that  it would "probably result



            in an  acquittal  upon retrial  of  the defendant."    United
                                                                   ______



            States v. Wright, 625 F.2d 1017, 1019 (1st Cir. 1980). 
            ______    ______



                 Appellant  also   claims  that  he  is   entitled  to  a



            correction of  his sentence because the  government allegedly



            miscalculated  what  his  sentence  would have  been  if  the



            Federal  Sentencing Guidelines  applied to  this case.   This



            argument is without merit since there is no evidence that the



            district court was influenced by the government's calculation



            when the  court imposed  its sentence in  this pre-Guidelines



            case.  Appellant's other  arguments regarding sentencing were



            not  raised in  the  district court  and  hence will  not  be



            considered on appeal.  United States v. Carrillo-Figueroa, 34
                                   _____________    _________________



            F.3d 33, 39 (1st Cir. 1994).



                 Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.
                 ________   ___











                                         -2-