
USCA1 Opinion

	




          April 26, 1994        [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ___________________          No. 93-2086                                            MANUEL JIMENEZ-ISALE,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                                 Defendant, Appellee.                                  __________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO                  [Hon. Juan M. Perez-Gimenez, U.S. District Judge]                                               ___________________                                 ___________________                                        Before                                 Breyer, Chief Judge,                                         ___________                          Selya and Boudin, Circuit Judges.                                            ______________                                 ___________________               Manuel Jimenez-Isale on brief pro se.               ____________________               Guillermo  Gil,  United  States  Attorney,  and  Michael  E.               ______________                                   ___________          O'Hare, Trial Attorney, on brief for appellee.          ______                                  __________________                                  __________________                 Per Curiam.   We have reviewed  carefully the record  in                 __________            this case,  the report  and recommendation of  the magistrate            judge, the opinion and  order of the district court,  and the            parties' briefs.  We  find no merit in appellant's  appeal of            the denial of his petition  for habeas corpus relief pursuant            to 28 U.S.C.   2255.                 We  make only  two  remarks.   First,  a review  of  the            transcript of appellant's change  of plea hearing makes clear            that appellant "received 'real  notice of the true nature  of            the charge against him,'" Henderson v.  Morgan, 426 U.S. 637,                                      _________     ______            645 (1976)  (quoting  Smith v.  O'Grady,  312 U.S.  329,  334                                  _____     _______            (1941)), and,  therefore, that his  plea was "voluntary  in a            constitutional sense," id.   Second, inasmuch as the sentence                                   __            imposed upon  appellant was within the  statutory limits, the            fact that it  was imposed by  a different judge from  the one            who  sentenced  appellant's  coconspirator  "is  an  adequate            explanation for  the disparity [in  sentences] and eliminates            any possible appearance of vindictiveness."  United States v.                                                         _____________            Quejada-Zurique, 708 F.2d 857,  861 (1st Cir.), cert. denied,            _______________                                 ____  ______            464 U.S. 855 (1983).                   Affirmed.                 ________                                         -2-
