[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________





        No. 97-1369





                                    UNITED STATES,



                                      Appellee,



                                          v.



                                 JOSE A. OTERO-ORTIZ,



                                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,
                                           ___________

                           Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________



                                 ____________________



            Joseph  C. Laws,  Jr., Federal  Public Defender,  and Miguel  A.A.
            _____________________                                 ____________

        Nogueras-Castro,  Assistant Federal  Public  Defender,  on  brief  for
        _______________

        appellant.

            Guillermo   Gil,  United   States  Attorney,   Nelson  Perez-Sosa,
            _______________                                __________________

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

        Litigation Counsel, on brief for appellee.





                                 ____________________



                                  Octoberf 24, 1997

                                 ____________________































                 Per  Curiam.    After pleading  guilty,  appellant  Jose
                 ___________



            Otero- Ortiz was  convicted of drug offenses  in violation of



            21  U.S.C.    841, 846, and 18  U.S.C.   2.  He was sentenced



            to 10-years' imprisonment, the mandatory minimum required  by



            21  U.S.C.    841(b)(1)(A),  and  five  years  of  supervised



            release.  Appellant has AIDS.  His sole argument on appeal is



            that the  district court  erred by declining  to grant  him a



            downward departure   because he  has AIDS due to  the court's



            mistaken assumption that  health cannot form  the basis of  a



            departure.   Because  appellant never  requested  a  downward



            departure  below, this  issue has  been waived.   See,  e.g.,
                                                              ___   ____



            United States  v. Catucci,  55 F.3d 15,  18 (1st  Cir. 1995);
            _____________     _______



            United States v. Field, 39 F.3d 15, 21 (1st Cir. 1994).  Even
            _____________    _____



            if  that  were not  so,  the  contention  is meritless.    No



            authority  exists for  a sentencing  court to  depart  from a



            statutory  minimum  based merely  on  the  defendant's health



            condition.   United States v.  Rounsavall, 115 F.3d  561, 566
                         _____________     __________



            (8th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ S. Ct. ___, 1997 WESTLAW 562074
                        _____ ______



            (U.S.,  Oct.  6,  1997).    There  was  no  evidence  of  any



            extraordinary physical  impairment.  See, e.g., United States
                                                 ___  ____  _____________



            v. Rabins,  63 F.3d 721,  728 (8th Cir. 1995),  cert. denied,
               ______                                       _____ ______



            116 S. Ct.  1031 (1996).  Thus,  even if appellant had  asked



            and  qualified for a downward departure  based on his health,



            the  district court  was still  bound to  impose  the 10-year



            mandatory minimum.   Accordingly, the  judgment of conviction







                                         -2-





























            is affirmed.
               ________







































































































                                         -3-