[NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]

                 United States Court of Appeals

                     For the First Circuit











No. 98-1865



                          UNITED STATES,



                            Appellee,



                                v.



                          EDGAR CAMACHO,



                      Defendant, Appellant.







           APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS



            [Hon. Patti B. Saris, U.S. District Judge]







                              Before



                    Boudin, Stahl and Lynch,

                        Circuit Judges.

                                

                                

                                

                                

     

     Joshua L. Gordon on brief for appellant.

     Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney, and Kevin P. McGrath,

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











February 24, 2000







                                

                                

  

  

            Per Curiam.   After a thorough review of the record

  and of the parties' submissions, we affirm.  Drug quantity was

  not an element of the offense, so the lower court's failure at

  the Rule 11 hearing to explore the factual basis for the

  quantity specified in the plea agreement was not error.  United

  States v. Lindia, 82 F.3d 1154, 1160 (1st Cir. 1996).  We see

  no clear error in the court's finding at sentencing that

  Camacho should be responsible for the quantity specified in the

  plea agreement, especially in light of Camacho's agreement to

  be responsible for that amount, United States v. Marrero-

  Rivera, 124 F.3d 342, 354 (1st Cir. 1997); his admission that

  he was involved in the conspiracy during the times in question,

  United States v. Miranda-Santiago, 96 F.3d 517, 524-25 (1st Cir.

  1996); and the benefits Camacho reaped from the agreement, id. 

  Camacho's ineffective assistance of counsel claim is not

  cognizable on direct appeal.  United States v. Torres, 162 F.3d

  6, 11 n. 3 (1st Cir. 1998).

            Affirmed.  1st Cir. Loc. R. 27(c).