[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]


                           UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                ____________________



       No. 95-1392


                                   UNITED STATES,


                                      Appellee,


                                         v.


                                   ERNIE SANTIAGO,


                                Defendant, Appellant.


                                ____________________



                    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS


                    [Hon. Michael A. Ponsor, U.S. District Judge]


                                ____________________


                                       Before


                               Torruella, Chief Judge,

                          Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges.


                                ____________________


            Antoinette L. Hall and Payne & Hall on brief for appellant.

            Donald K.  Stern,  United States  Attorney,  and Andrew  Levchuk,

       Assistant 
                United States Attorney, on Motion for Summary Disposition for

       appellee.



                                ____________________


                                   April 14, 1997

                                ____________________








                 Per  Curiam.    Upon  careful  review  of  the   record,


            appellant's brief, and  the government's  motion for  summary


            disposition, 
                        we 
                          perceive 
                                   no error in appellant's sentence as an


            armed career criminal under 18 U.S.C. S 924(e)(1).  His three


            prior convictions properly were counted against him,  because


            they 
                involved 
                        different 
                                  dates, locations, and victims; it makes


            no 
              difference 
                         that 
                             two 
                                 of the convictions were consolidated for


            sentencing or  that  all three  of  the sentences  were  made


            concurrent.  See United States v. Riddle, 47 F.3d 460, 461-62


            (1st Cir. 1995). 


                 Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.
































                                         -2-