October 4, 1996         [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT







                                 ____________________





        No. 96-1232



                                   DOMONIC SANTINI,



                                Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                          v.



                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,



                                 Defendant, Appellee.





                                 ____________________



                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO



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



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Selya, Cyr and Boudin,

                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________



                                 ____________________



            Domonic Santini on brief pro se.
            _______________

            Jorge E.  Pacheco, Acting  United States Attorney, Jose  A. Quiles
            _________________                                  _______________

        Espinosa, Senior  Litigation Counsel, and Edwin  O. Vazquez, Assistant
        ________                                  _________________

        U.S. Attorney, on brief for appellee.





                                 ____________________





                                 ____________________































                 Per Curiam.  Pro  se prisoner Domonic Santini  appeals a
                 __________   ___  __



            district  court order  that summarily  denied his  motion for



            relief from  his sentence under  28 U.S.C.    2255.   We have



            thoroughly  reviewed the  record and  the parties'  briefs on



            appeal and  conclude that  the motion was  properly dismissed



            for the reasons stated in the district court's order.  We add



            that we  find Santini's  claims for  sentencing relief to  be



            patently  meritless.    Accordingly,  the   judgment  of  the



            district court is affirmed.    See Barrett v.  United States,
                              ________     ___ _______     _____________



            965  F.2d 1184,  1195  (1st Cir.  1992)(summary dismissal  is



            proper where   2255 claims are inadequate on their face).































































                                         -2-