[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________





        No. 96-1707



                              AMADOR IRIZARRY-SANABRIA,



                                Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                          v.



                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,



                                 Defendant, Appellee.



                                 ____________________





                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO



                    [Hon. Jose Antonio Fuste, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________

                          Boudin and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________



                                 ____________________



            Amador Irizarry-Sanabria on brief pro se.
            ________________________

            Guillermo  Gil,   United  States   Attorney,  Nelson   Perez-Sosa,
            ______________                                ___________________

        Assistant United States Attorney,  and Jose A. Quiles-Espinosa, Senior
                                               _______________________

        Litigation Counsel, on brief for appellee.





                                 ____________________



                                  November 18, 1996

                                 ____________________





































                      Per  Curiam.   Amador Irizarry-Sanabria  requests a
                      ___________



            certificate of  appealability,  see 28  U.S.C.    2253(c)(2),
                                            ___



            from  this court to appeal the district court's denial of his



            motion filed  under 28 U.S.C.   2255.   We grant the request,



            but  affirm  the  judgment  of the  district  court  for  the



            following reasons.            With   respect  to   Irizarry's



            contention   that  he   was   entitled  to   be  present   at



            resentencing,  we  conclude  that  the  error,  if  any,  was



            harmless.     Irizarry's  current   sentence  of  121  months



            imprisonment is  the lowest possible under  the guidelines as



            recalculated  by the district  court; that is,  121 months is



            the  bottom  of  the  sentencing  range  with  the  two-level



            increase  in Irizarry's  base  offense level.   The  district



            court made this increase pursuant to U.S.S.G.   2D1.1(b)(1).



                      This section states  that "[i]f a dangerous  weapon



            (including a  firearm) was possessed, increase  by 2 levels."



            The  commentary clarifies  that  "[t]he adjustment  should be
                                                                ______



            applied  if the  weapon  was present,  unless  it is  clearly
                                                                  _______



            improbable that  the weapon was connected  with the offense."
            __________



              2D1.1 comment n.3  (emphasis added).  The facts  as recited



            in  our opinion on direct appeal establish that at the second



            meeting of the conspiracy members, the confidential informant



            told the group that he wanted a gun if  he was to go and pick



            up  the marijuana by himself.   United States  v. Andujar, 49
                                            _____________     _______



            F.3d 16, 19 (1st Cir. 1995).  Irizarry then left the house at







                                         -2-





























            which the meeting was being held and returned soon thereafter



            with the gun  in question,  which he gave  to the  informant.



            Id.
            ___



                      Irizarry does  not  dispute  these  facts  on  this



            appeal.  Given that he procured the gun at the request of the



            person  responsible for  picking  up the  drugs so  that this



            person could have  the gun for protection during the pick-up,



            the  district   court  could  not  have   found  it  "clearly



            improbable" that the gun was connected to the offense.  Thus,



            the  court did  not  have  the  discretion  not  to  apply   
                            ___



            2D1.1(b)(1) and  it could  not have sentenced  Irizarry to  a
                                       ___



            term  of  imprisonment  lower  than 121  months.    In  these



            circumstances,  any error  in  failing to  hold a  sentencing



            hearing was harmless.



                      As for the two other grounds raised by  Irizarry in



            his    2255 motion, we  affirm the district court's rejection



            of  them for  the reasons  stated in  its Opinion  and Order,



            dated April 26, 1996.



                      The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
                                                            ________



                      TORRUELLA, Chief Judge (dissenting).  I   w o u l d



            remand for resentencing.























                                         -3-