USCA1 Opinion

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________


        No. 94-1379

                                 JOSE VENTURA-RAMOS,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.


                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND


                    [Hon. Ronald R. Lagueux, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                          Boudin and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________

                                 ____________________

            Jose Ventura Ramos on brief pro se.
            __________________
            Sheldon Whitehouse,  United States  Attorney,  Margaret E.  Curran
            __________________                             ___________________
        and  Lawrence D. Gaynor,  Assistant United States  Attorneys, on brief
             __________________
        for appellee.


                                 ____________________
                                  November 30, 1994
                                 ____________________



























                 Per  Curiam.   Jose Ventura-Ramos  appeals the  district
                 ___________

            court's  judgment denying  his motion  filed  pursuant to  28

            U.S.C.   2255.   He presses none of the claims  raised in the

            court  below.   At best,  he  has reconfigured  one of  those

            claims.   In the  district court, he  claimed that  he should

            have  received a four level  downward adjustment as a minimal

            participant in the offenses of conviction, U.S.S.G.  3B1.2(a)

            (Nov.  1991), and he  received ineffective assistance  by his

            trial counsel,  who failed  to ask for  this adjustment.   On

            appeal,  he now  claims that  he should  have received  a two

            level downward  adjustment as a  minor participant,  U.S.S.G.

             3B1.2(b) (Nov. 1991), and he received ineffective assistance

            of counsel,  not only from  his trial counsel, who  failed to

            ask for this adjustment, but also from his appellate counsel,

            who  failed to  raise this  issue on his  direct appeal.   We

            affirm.

                 We have repeatedly stated that we will not review claims

            not raised below.  See, e.g., United States v. Lilly, 13 F.3d
                               _________  _____________    _____

            15, 17-18 (1st Cir. 1994).  Even were we to construe Ventura-

            Ramos' reconfigured claim as  having been encompassed  within

            the claim  raised below,  it  avails appellant  nothing.   He

            alleges that  he was a  minor participant in the  offenses of

            conviction  based  on   his  claims  of  mere   presence  and

            willingness  to allow others to  use his apartment to conduct

            the drug sale.  Those  claims are refuted by the evidence  at





















            trial   concerning  Ventura-Ramos'   role  in   the  offense,

            recounted  in  our opinion  disposing  of  appellant's direct

            appeal, United States v. Ventura-Ramos, No. 92-1434, slip op.
                    _____________    _____________

            at 2-3 (1st Cir. Nov.  13, 1992 (unpublished per curiam), and

            by the statements of the  district court at sentencing and in

            the course  of disposing  of the instant    2255  motion that

            Ventura-Ramos  had a leadership role in the drug distribution

            conspiracy.

                 No  defendant  is automatically  entitled to  a downward

            adjustment  as a  minor participant,  even  if the  defendant
                                                  ________

            happens to be less culpable than his or her co-defendants - a

            claim  Ventura-Ramos urges  here but, as  pointed out  in the

            preceding paragraph,  is refuted by  the record.   See United
                                                               ___ ______

            States v. Brandon, 17 F.3d 409, 460 (1st Cir.), cert. denied,
            ______    _______                               ____________

            115 S. Ct.  80, 81 (1994).  A  district court's determination

            of  a defendant's  role  in  the offense  is  subject to  the

            clearly erroneous  standard.   Id.  There  was no  such error
                                           ___

            here.  Further,  counsel's failure to raise  meritless issues

            cannot  constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.  United
                                                                   ______

            States v. Victoria, 876 F.2d 1009, 1013 (1st Cir. 1989).
            ______    ________

                 Affirmed.
                 _________











                                         -3-