[NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]

                 United States Court of Appeals

                     For the First Circuit











No. 98-1543



                          UNITED STATES,



                            Appellee,



                                v.



                     JOHAMID HERNANDEZ-COTTO,



                      Defendant, Appellant.







           APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                 FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO



         [Hon. Salvador E. Casellas, U.S. District Judge]







                              Before



                    Selya, Boudin and Lynch,

                        Circuit Judges.

                                

                                

                                

                                

     Maria Soledad Ramirez-Becerra on brief for appellant.

     Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, Jorge E. Vega-Pacheco,

Assistant United States Attorney, and Nelson Perez-Sosa, Assistant

United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.











June 10, 1999







                                

  

  

            Per Curiam.  Upon careful review of the briefs and

  record, we find no merit in defendant's belated claim that his

  plea was invalid.  The district court was not obligated to

  provide the detailed instruction suggested by defendant, and,

  in addition, it is implausible that the omitted information

  would have made any material difference in defendant's decision

  to plead guilty.  Defendant has not shown "a fundamental defect

  which inherently results in a complete miscarriage of justice

  . . . or an omission inconsistent with the rudimentary demands

  of fair procedure."  United States v. Lopez-Pineda, 55 F.3d

  693, 696-97 (1st Cir. 1995) (internal citations and quotations

  omitted).

            Defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of

  counsel also fails.  Even assuming arguendo that defendant's

  factual assertions were true, in all the circumstances of this

  case, we cannot say that defendant's attorney was required to

  advise what we view as a "very dangerous course."  See United

  States v. Montanez, 82 F.3d 520, 523 (1st Cir. 1996).

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