[NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]

                 United States Court of Appeals

                     For the First Circuit











No. 98-2189



                         RAMIRO RAMIREZ,



                      Petitioner, Appellant,



                                v.



                          UNITED STATES,



                      Respondent, Appellee.







           APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                 FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND



           [Hon. Ernest C. Torres, U.S. District Judge]







                              Before



                     Torruella, Chief Judge,

                Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,

                   and Lynch, Circuit Judge.

                                

                                

                                

                                

     Ramiro Ramirez on brief pro se.

     Margaret E. Curran, United States Attorney, and Kenneth P.

Madden, Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.











July 12, 1999







                                

                                

                                

  

            Per Curiam.  Upon careful review of the briefs and

  record, we conclude that the district court properly dismissed

  defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.  We

  reach this conclusion essentially for the reasons stated by the

  district court in its Memorandum and Order dated August 20,

  1998, and we add only this comment.  

            We are not prepared to say in the circumstances of

  this case that the attorney's alleged failure to obtain

  petitioner's consent, would have been presumptively

  prejudicial.  See Scarpa v. Dubois, 38 F.3d 1, 11-15 (1st Cir.

  1994); Underwood v. Clark, 939 F.2d 473, 474 (7th Cir. 1991);

  see also  United States v. Gomes, ___ F.3d ___, slip op. at 17

  (1st Cir. No. 97-2193  May 27, 1999); Bell v. Evatt, 72 F.3d

  421, 429 (4th Cir. 1995).  We reject petitioner's analogies to

  a guilty plea or a waiver of jury trial, see Gomes, ___ F.3d

  ___, slip op. at 17, and his conclusory allegations of breach

  of loyalty and actual conflict of interest have no basis.

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