[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

No. 96-1716

UNITED STATES,

Appellee,

v.

JOSE I. ARIAS PLACENCIO,

Defendant, Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

[Hon. Hector M. Laffitte, U.S. District Judge]

Before

Selya, Boudin and Stahl, Circuit Judges.

Francisco Serrano-Walker on brief for appellant. Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, Jose A. Quiles and Jacabed Rodriguez-Coss, Assistant United States Attorneys, on brief for appellee.

June 6, 1997

Per Curiam. Upon careful review of the briefs and

record, we conclude that defendant's contentions of error do

not merit a new trial.

The district court's acted within its discretion in

refusing the jury's request to hear again the testimony of the

two main witnesses. See United States v. Akitoye,

(1st Cir. 1991).

The district court also acted within its discretion in

refusing defendant's late request for an additional instruction

on ignorance of the law, particularly as the instructions

regarding the elements of the offenses, "knowingly," and

"willfully" adequately addressed the issue of defendant's

knowledge of the currency reporting requirement. See United

States v. Vazquez,

(11th Cir. 1995).

And, on de novo review, we cannot say that the

prosecutor's inappropriate remark during rebuttal argument so

affected the verdict as to warrant a new trial, considering the

brevity of the remark, the district court's response, and the

context of the proceedings as a whole. See United States v.

Procopio,

(1st Cir. 1996).

Affirmed. See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.

-2-