
USCA1 Opinion

	




        October 4, 1996         [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 96-1232                                   DOMONIC SANTINI,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                                 Defendant, Appellee.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO                    [Hon. Hector M. Laffitte, U.S. District Judge]                                              ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Selya, Cyr and Boudin,                                   Circuit Judges.                                   ______________                                 ____________________            Domonic Santini on brief pro se.            _______________            Jorge E.  Pacheco, Acting  United States Attorney, Jose  A. Quiles            _________________                                  _______________        Espinosa, Senior  Litigation Counsel, and Edwin  O. Vazquez, Assistant        ________                                  _________________        U.S. Attorney, on brief for appellee.                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                 Per Curiam.  Pro  se prisoner Domonic Santini  appeals a                 __________   ___  __            district  court order  that summarily  denied his  motion for            relief from  his sentence under  28 U.S.C.    2255.   We have            thoroughly  reviewed the  record and  the parties'  briefs on            appeal and  conclude that  the motion was  properly dismissed            for the reasons stated in the district court's order.  We add            that we  find Santini's  claims for  sentencing relief to  be            patently  meritless.    Accordingly,  the   judgment  of  the            district court is affirmed.    See Barrett v.  United States,                              ________     ___ _______     _____________            965  F.2d 1184,  1195  (1st Cir.  1992)(summary dismissal  is            proper where   2255 claims are inadequate on their face).                                         -2-
