
USCA1 Opinion

	




                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 96-1755                                    UNITED STATES,                                      Appellee,                                          v.                                  JAMES OTIS RAINES,                                Defendant, Appellant.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE                     [Hon. D. Brock Hornby, U.S. District Judge]                                            ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Torruella, Chief Judge,                                           ___________                           Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,                                     ____________________                              and Boudin, Circuit Judge.                                          _____________                                 ____________________            Gordon R. Blakeney, Jr. on brief for appellant.            _______________________            Jay P. McCloskey, United  States Attorney, James  L. McCarthy  and            ________________                           __________________        Margaret D. McGaughey, Assistant United States Attorneys, on brief for        _____________________        appellee.                                 ____________________                                    March 25, 1997                                 ____________________                 Per  Curiam.   Upon  careful  review of  the  briefs and                 ___________            record,  we  conclude that  defendant's  plea  should not  be            vacated.   The  district  court told  defendant  that he  was            "subject to  a term of imprisonment which  is a minimum of 15            years."   Even though the  district court did  not state that            the  minimum sentence  was  "mandatory," that  slip does  not            entitle  defendant to  relief  in the  circumstances of  this            case.                 Defendant offers  no  plausible reason  for his  belated            attempt to change his  plea; he makes no claim  of innocence;            and there is  nothing legally  suspect about the  plea.   The            proceedings  as  a  whole suggest  that  defendant reasonably            should have  understood, and  did understand,  the sentencing            implications of his plea.  See United States v. Lopez-Pineda,                                       ___ _____________    ____________            55 F.3d 693, 696 (1st Cir. 1995).                  We   also  find  no   merit  in  defendant's  contention            regarding an  enhancement for  obstruction of justice.   That            enhancement  had  no bearing  on  the  armed career  criminal            sentence   ultimately   imposed   here   under   U.S.S.G.                4B1.4(b)(3).  See United States v. Ruiz-Garcia, 886 F.2d 474,                          ___ _____________    ___________            476 (1st Cir. 1989).                 Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.                 ________   ___                                         -2-
