[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT



                                 ____________________





        No. 97-2203



                                    UNITED STATES,



                                      Appellee,



                                          v.



                                  RICARDO GONZALEZ,



                                Defendant, Appellant.





                                 ____________________



                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS



                   [Hon. Douglas P. Woodlock, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________

                          Selya and Boudin, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________



                                 ____________________



            Charles W. Rankin and Rankin & Sultan on brief for appellant.
            _________________     _______________

            Donald K.  Stern, United States  Attorney, and William F. Sinnott,
            ________________                               __________________

        Assistant U.S. Attorney, on brief for appellee.





                                 ____________________



                                  February 20, 1998

                                 ____________________





































                 Per  Curiam.   We  perceive  no  error  in the  district
                 ___________



            court's adherence to our decision in  United States v. Clase-
                                                  _____________    ______



            Espinal, 115 F.3d 1054, 1059-60 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 118
            _______                                     ____________



            S.Ct.  384 (1997), and defendant offers no substantial reason



            to revisit or distinguish that  decision.  In all events, we,



            as a panel, are bound by the panel decision in Clase-Espinal.
                                                           _____________



            See, e.g.,  United States v.  Wogan, 938 F.2d 1446  (1st Cir.
            ___  ____   _____________     _____



            1991).



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







































































                                         -2-