[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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,

(1st Cir.), cert. denied,

(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,

(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-