USCA1 Opinion

        December 12, 1995       [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT



                           



                                 ____________________





        No. 95-1256 



                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,



                                 Plaintiff, Appellee,



                                          v.



                               JOHN J. ZULETA-ALVAREZ,



                                Defendant, Appellant.





                                 ____________________



                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE



                       [Hon. Gene Carter, U.S. District Judge]
                                          ___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Cyr, Boudin and Lynch,

                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________



                                 ____________________



            John J. Zuleta-Alvarez on brief pro se.
            ______________________

            Jay P. McCloskey,  United States  Attorney, and  F. Mark  Terison,
            ________________                                 ________________

        Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.





                                 ____________________





                                 ____________________

















































                      Per Curiam.   Petitioner-appellant John J.  Zuleta-
                      __________



            Alvarez appeals pro se from the district court's dismissal of
                            ___ __



            his second petition pursuant to 28  U.S.C.   2255 as an abuse



            of  the  writ.   Nothing  in  our  November  3, 1992  opinion



            affirming the  denial of  petitioner's first    2255 petition



            was  intended to indicate that an "abuse of the writ" defense



            would be  unavailable if petitioner filed  a second petition.



            We  merely  intended  to  alert the  pro  se  petitioner that
                                                 ___  __



            although the issue he raised for the first time on appeal did



            not merit  relief under  our narrowly circumscribed  scope of



            review, it could be raised in  a new   2255 petition, subject



            to any available defenses (including abuse of the writ).



                      Petitioner's  reliance  upon   Sanders  v.   United
                                                     _______       ______



            States,  373 U.S. 1 (1963), is misplaced.  McCleskey v. Zant,
            ______                                     _________    ____



            499  U.S. 467  (1991),  established the  cause and  prejudice



            standard  that  now governs  in  abuse  of  the  writ  cases.



            Petitioner has failed to  demonstrate "cause" for his failure



            to raise the two  issues presently before  us in his first   



            2255 petition.   We disagree  that this  court's decision  in



            United  States v.  O'Campo, 973  F.2d  1015 (1st  Cir. 1992),
            ______________     _______



            constituted   new  law   such  that   the  legal   basis  for



            petitioner's present claims  was not reasonably available  at



            the  time that  his first  petition was  filed.   The O'Campo
                                                                 ________



            holding relied  upon a straightforward  interpretation of the



            language  of  the   then-current  United  States   Sentencing







                                         -2-





























            Guidelines  and  the commentary  thereto.  The  same relevant



            language  was  contained  in  the  Guidelines  in  effect  in



            December  1991, when  petitioner  filed his  first  petition.



            Therefore, the language of the Guidelines themselves provided



            a legal basis for petitioner's present claims.



                      Petitioner  has failed  to  satisfy  his burden  of



            showing  cause  for  failing  to  raise  earlier  the  claims



            contained in his second    2255 petition.   Nor has he  shown



            that a "fundamental miscarriage  of justice would result from



            a failure to entertain the claim[s]."  McCleskey v. Zant, 499
                                                   _________    ____



            U.S. at 495.  Therefore, we affirm the district court's order
                                        ______



            dismissing  petitioner's second  petition under  28  U.S.C.  



            2255 as an abuse of the writ.























































                                         -3-