
USCA1 Opinion

	




                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                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-
