
USCA1 Opinion

	




                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 96-2033                                    UNITED STATES,                                      Appellee,                                          v.                                  VINCENT LOMBARDI,                                Defendant, Appellant.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND                [Hon. Raymond J. Pettine, Senior U.S. District Judge]                                          __________________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Torruella, Chief Judge,                                           ___________                           Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges.                                            ______________                                 ____________________            Vince Lombardi on brief pro se.            ______________            Sheldon Whitehouse, United States Attorney,  and Andrew J.  Reich,            __________________                               ________________        Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.                                 ____________________                                   October 17, 1997                                 ____________________                 Per Curiam.    Upon careful  review  of the  briefs  and                 __________            record, we perceive  no reason to set  aside appellant's plea            or sentence.                 The  plea proceedings  reveal  no fundamental  defect or            miscarriage of justice.   Appellant's argument  regarding the            scope of 18 U.S.C.   371 is  meritless.  See United States v.                                                     ___ _____________            Brandon, 17 F.3d 409, 422  (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S.            _______                                ____________            820 (1994).  The  record does not support appellant's  claims            that  his plea  was coerced  and that  the plea  colloquy was            confusing  or inadequate.   Further,  as  the district  court            carefully ascertained the voluntariness of appellant's  plea,            and his plea  agreement reflected the  reciprocal arrangement            with the codefendant,  we are not compelled to  set aside the            plea.   Cf. United States  v. Martinez-Molina,  64 F.3d  719,                    ___ _____________     _______________            732-34 (1st Cir. 1995).                  The sentencing proceedings  reveal no clear error  as to            the  adjustments under U.S.S.G.     2B1.1(b)(4)(B) & 3B1.1(c)            or otherwise.  And,  by providing that the  restitution order            was subject to reconsideration, the district court adequately            took into account appellant's ability to pay.                   Appellant's  remaining  arguments do  not  merit further            comment.                 We   do  not   address   appellant's  claims   regarding            ineffective assistance  of counsel,  as such  claims must  be                                         -2-            presented to  the district court  in the first instance  in a            motion under 28 U.S.C.   2255.                   Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.                 ________   ___                                         -3-
