June 17, 1996

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________





        No. 95-2011



                                 RUBEN SANTANA-DIAZ,



                                Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                          v.



                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,



                                 Defendant, Appellee.



                                 ____________________





                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO



                  [Hon. Juan M. Perez-Gimenez, U.S. District Judge]
                                               ___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                 Selya, Cyr and Lynch,

                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________



                                 ____________________



            Ruben Santana-Diaz on brief pro se.
            __________________

            Guillermo  Gil, Acting  United States  Attorney, John  C.  Keeney,
            ______________                                   ________________

        Acting Assistant Attorney General, Theresa M.B. Van Vliet,  Chief, and
                                           ______________________

        Lena Watkins, Attorney, Criminal Division, Narcotic and Dangerous Drug
        ____________

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





                                 ____________________





                                 ____________________







                      Per Curiam.   Ruben  Santana Diaz appeals  from the
                      __________































            district court's dismissal of his petition  under 28 U.S.C.  



            2255.  We affirm for the reasons given briefly below.



                      1.   Santana did not raise his claim that the trial



            court's failure  to order  identification or production  of a



            confidential informant  prejudiced his  ability to assert  an



            entrapment  defense in his direct appeal.   See United States
                                                        ___ _____________



            v. Panet-Collazo, 960 F.2d 256, 259 (1st Cir.), cert. denied,
               _____________                                ____________



            506 U.S. 876 (1992).  Failure to raise a constitutional claim



            on  direct  appeal  ordinarily  bars  raising  the  issue  on



            collateral attack  unless the  petitioner can show  cause for



            the failure and actual prejudice from the alleged trial court



            error.   See Knight v.  United States, 37 F.3d  769, 774 (1st
                     ___ ______     _____________



            Cir. 1994).  



                      As  cause, Santana asserts  his appellate counsel's



            ineffective assistance of counsel.   However, as the district



            court  correctly  concluded  in  resolving  that  issue,  the



            failure to  obtain the confidential  informant's testimony at



            trial  did  not  prejudice  Santana's ability  to  assert  an



            entrapment defense.   Even assuming that  the informant would



            have  testified as  Santana suggests,  at most  his testimony



            would  have established  only one  element of  the entrapment



            defense -- that the government induced Santana to participate



            in  the drug  deal  in question.    To assert  an  entrapment



            defense, however, Santana also had to establish at trial that



            he  was  not predisposed  to commit  his  crime.   See United
                                                               ___ ______







                                         -2-





























            States v. Panet-Collazo, 960 F.2d 256,  259 (1st Cir.), cert.
            ______    _____________                                 _____



            denied, 506 U.S. 876 (1992).    As we held on  direct appeal,
            ______



            he never did so.  Id. at 259-60.  
                              ___



                      2.  Santana  bears the burden  of showing that  the



            court vindictively sentenced him  for exercising his right to



            a jury trial, as he claims.   United States v. Mena-Robles, 4
                                          _____________    ___________



            F.3d 1026, 1037  (1st Cir.  1993), cert. denied,  114 S.  Ct.
                                               ____________



            1550 (1994).   He  has not  pointed to  any statement by  the



            district court or any other evidence suggesting that there is



            a "reasonable likelihood" that he received a harsher sentence



            than he otherwise  would have because he went to  trial so as



            to trigger a  presumption of  vindictiveness.  See  id.   The
                                                           ________



            mere  fact  that  co-defendants, who  pled  guilty,  received



            lesser sentences does  not show that it  is reasonably likely



            that Santana  was vindictively sentenced.   Id.   Hence,  the
                                                        ___



            claim of vindictive sentencing fails.  Id.  
                                                   ___



                      Affirmed.
                      _________







































                                         -3-