
USCA1 Opinion

	




                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 95-2053                                             UNITED STATES,                                      Appellee,                                          v.                               JOSE LUIS MOZO SANCHEZ,                                Defendant, Appellant.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO                  [Hon. Juan M. Perez-Gimenez, U.S. District Judge]                                               ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Torruella, Chief Judge,                                           ___________                            Cyr and Stahl, Circuit Judges.                                           ______________                                 ____________________            Theodore L. Craft on brief for appellant.            _________________            Guillermo Gil,  United  States  Attorney,  Epifanio  Morales-Cruz,            _____________                              ______________________        Assistant United States Attorney, and  Jose A. Quiles Espinosa, Senior                                               _______________________        Litigation Counsel, on brief for appellee.                                 ____________________                                   August 22, 1996                                 ____________________                      Per Curiam.  Upon careful review  of the briefs and                      __________            record, it  appears that this appeal  presents no substantial            question.                      We perceive no plain  error in the district court's            acceptance of defendant's  guilty plea.  The  evidence of the            overheard phone call does not suggest to us  that defendant's            right of privacy was violated, that his plea was involuntary,            or that the district court was required sua sponte to inquire                                                    __________            into the matter.                      We also  perceive no plain error  in the sentencing            proceedings  related to  defendant's medical condition.   The            district  court postponed  sentencing  pending the  necessary            medical  evaluations,  and  both sides  acknowledged  at  the            sentencing hearing that those  evaluations were negative.  We            find no basis for resentencing here.                      Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.                      ________   ___                                         -2-
