[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________





        No. 95-1858



                                    UNITED STATES,



                                      Appellee,



                                          v.



                               VALENTIN SEVERINO-NUNEZ,



                                Defendant, Appellant.



                                 ____________________



                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO



                    [Hon. Hector M. Laffitte, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________

                            Cyr and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
                                           ______________



                                 ____________________



            Raymond Rivera on brief for appellant.
            ______________







                                 ____________________



                                   August 14, 1996

                                 ____________________











































                      Per Curiam.  Valentin Severino Nunez pled guilty to
                      __________



            aiding  and  abetting  others in  possessing  with  intent to



            distribute approximately  540  kilograms of  cocaine and  was



            sentenced to  a 90-month  prison term.  He appealed  from his



            sentence.   Appellate  counsel  has now  filed a  brief under



            Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting the lack
            ______    __________



            of  any  meritorious  ground  for  appeal,  and a  motion  to



            withdraw which he has  served on Severino.  Although  counsel



            notified Severino of his right to  file a supplemental brief,



            Severino has not filed any brief and the deadline has passed.



            Because we  agree that  this appeal has  no merit,  we affirm



            Severino's  conviction and sentence  and grant the  motion to



            withdraw.  



                      The plea  hearing transcript  shows that  the court



            conducted a colloquy which substantially conformed to Fed. R.



            Crim.  P. 11  requirements  and  that  Severino  pled  guilty



            voluntarily and knowingly.  Hence, his guilty plea was valid.



            Cf. United  States v. Cotal-Crespo,  47 F.3d 1, 4  (1st Cir.)
            ___ ______________    ____________



            (guilty  pleas which violate  the "core concerns"  of Rule 11



            must be set  aside), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 94 (1995).  Any
                                 ____________



            technical defect was harmless.  See id.; see Fed. R. Crim. P.
                                            ___ ___  ___



            11(h) (variances from Rule 11  procedures which do not affect



            substantial rights are to be disregarded).  



                      Any  claim that Severino  should have  received the



            lowest  possible   sentence,  i.e.,  87   months,  would   be







                                         -2-





























            meritless.   The applicable sentencing guideline range was 87



            to  108  months.    In the  plea  agreement,  the  government



            promised to  recommend a sentence  at the "lower" end  of the



            range,  which it did.  At sentencing, the court imposed a 90-



            month sentence, which was unquestionably within the lower end



            of  the  guidelines.    Even  if,  despite  the  government's



            recommendation,  the court had chosen an even higher sentence



            within the  guideline range, Severino would have no basis for



            complaint.  In his  plea agreement, he acknowledged  that the



            court  was   not   bound  by   the  government's   sentencing



            recommendations.  



                      Moreover,  Severino  cannot  avail  himself of  the



            additional two-level reduction in base offense level accorded



            some defendants by Amendment 515 of the Sentencing Guidelines



            since he was sentenced before the Amendment became effective.



            In  United States  v. Sanchez,  81  F.3d 9,  12-13 (1st  Cir.
                _____________     _______



            1995), petition for cert. filed, -- U.S.L.W. -- (U.S. July 8,
                   ________________________



            1996) (No. 96-5082), we determined that  the Amendment is not



            retroactive.



                      We affirm  appellant's conviction and  sentence and
                      ___________________________________________________



            grant counsel's motion to withdraw.
            ___________________________________























                                         -3-