February 13, 1996       [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT



                           



                                 ____________________





        No. 95-1765 



                                ANTONIO MANUELA-LAZU,



                                Petitioner, Appellant,



                                          v.



                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,



                                Respondent, Appellee.



                                 ____________________



                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO



                    [Hon. Raymond L. Acosta, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before

                                           

                               Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                          ___________

                           Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________

                                 ____________________



            Antonio Manuela Lazu on brief pro se.
            ____________________

            John  C. Keeney, Acting  Assistant Attorney  General, Theresa M.B.
            _______________                                       ____________

        Van  Vliet,  Chief,  Hope  P.  McGowan,  and  John  J.  Farley,  Trial
        __________           _________________        ________________

        Attorneys,  Narcotic and  Dangerous Drug  Section,  Criminal Division,

        U.S. Department of Justice, on brief for appellee.





                                 ____________________





                                 ____________________

















































                      Per Curiam.   Defendant-appellant Antonio  Manuela-
                      __________



            Lazu appeals  from the district court's  summary dismissal of



            his motion  under 28 U.S.C.    2255  to vacate, set  aside or



            correct his sentence.  We affirm.



                 Manuela  pleaded  guilty  to  one count  of  a  39-count



            indictment  charging  him  and  numerous  co-defendants  with



            conspiring  to  possess  with  intent  to  distribute  10,000



            kilograms of cocaine and 1,000  kilograms of marihuana.   The



            government and  Manuela stipulated,  for the purposes  of the



            plea  agreement,   that  Manuela  was   responsible  for  the



            importation or  distribution of "more than  150 kilograms but



            less  than 500  kilograms of  cocaine, including  conduct for



            which  the  defendant  would   be  otherwise  accountable  by



            application  of  U.S.S.G.     1B1.3."   The  plea  agreement,



            consistent with the stipulation, provided that the applicable



            base offense level was 38.  The sentencing court accepted the



            recommended base offense level and, accordingly, arrived at a



            guideline sentencing range of  188 to 235 months.   The court



            sentenced him to 188  months' imprisonment.  Manuela  did not



            appeal.



                 In his    2255 motion, Manuela claims  that the district



            court's failure to make  an independent finding regarding the



            quantity of drugs for  which he was individually responsible,



            violated due  process.  "[F]ailure to  raise a constitutional



            issue  [except ineffective  assistance of counsel]  on direct







                                         -2-





























            appeal will bar raising the issue on collateral attack unless



            the defendant  can  show cause  for  the failure  and  actual



            prejudice." Knight  v. United States,  37 F.3d 769,  774 (1st
                        ______     _____________



            Cir. 1994).



                 Manuela has failed to identify  a change in the relevant



            law or any  other "cause" for  his failure  to raise his  due



            process  argument  on  direct  appeal.   Accordingly,  it  is



            unnecessary to address the  prejudice prong of the cause-and-



            prejudice  test.    Nor   has  Manuela  demonstrated  that  a



            fundamental  miscarriage  of  justice  will  result  from the



            dismissal of his due process claim.   He has not claimed that



            he entered  the stipulation involuntarily or  that the guilty



            plea is in any way defective.  Moreover, the PSR reveals that



            there is a reasonable factual basis for the quantity of drugs



            that Manuela stipulated to.  See U.S.S.G.   6B1.4.
                                         ___



                 The  summary dismissal  of  Manuela's    2255 motion  is



            affirmed.
            ________







































                                         -3-