USCA1 Opinion

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________





        No. 96-2168



                                  TERRENCE BROOKER,



                                Petitioner, Appellant,



                                          v.



                                    UNITED STATES,



                                Respondent, Appellee.



                                 ____________________





                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND



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



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                 Selya, Circuit Judge,
                                        _____________

                              Cyr, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                   ____________________

                              and Lynch, Circuit Judge.
                                         _____________



                                 ____________________



            Terrence Terain Brooker on brief pro se.
            _______________________

            Sheldon  Whitehouse, United  States Attorney,  Margaret E.  Curran
            ___________________                            ___________________

        and Edwin J.  Gale, Assistant  United States Attorneys,  on brief  for
            ______________

        appellee.





                                 ____________________



                                    April 29, 1997

                                 ____________________



































                      Per  Curiam.   Pro  se  appellant  Terrence Brooker
                      ___________



            appeals  from the denial of his motion to vacate his sentence



            under 28 U.S.C.   2255.  We affirm.



                      In   his   motion,   Brooker   alleged   that   his



            constitutional  rights to  due process  and to  the effective



            assistance  of counsel  had been  violated when  his attorney



            failed  to challenge, at sentencing  or on direct appeal, his



            enhanced  sentencing  for  conspiring  to distribute  and  to



            possess crack cocaine.   According to Brooker, the government



            failed to prove that  the drug crime to which  he pled guilty



            involved  "crack cocaine,"  rather  than some  other form  of



            "cocaine base"  for which he  would have been  more leniently



            sentenced.    However,  the  plea  hearing  transcript  shows



            unambiguously that, under oath, Brooker knowingly admitted to



            having   agreed   to  distribute   crack  cocaine   in  taped



            conversations with a  government informant.  "There can be no



            question that admissions to the court by a defendant during a



            guilty plea colloquy  can be relied upon by  the court at the



            sentencing  stage."  United States v. James, 78 F.3d 851, 856
                                 _____________    _____



            (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 128  (1996).  Because the
                       ____________



            record  conclusively  refutes  the allegations  in  Brooker's



            unverified     2255  motion,  the district  court  was  fully



            justified  in   denying   the  motion   without  holding   an



            evidentiary  hearing.  See United States  v. LaBonte, 70 F.3d
                                   ___ _____________     _______



            1396,  1413 (1st Cir. 1995),  petition for cert. granted, 116
                                          __________________________







                                         -2-





























            S. Ct. 2545 (1996) (a   2255 motion may  be dismissed without



            an evidentiary hearing if key factual averments in the motion



            are  contradicted "by  established  facts of  record"; habeas



            claims  must "rest  on  a foundation  of factual  allegations



            presented  under  oath,  either  in a  verified  petition  or



            supporting affidavits").  



                 Moreover, the district court had no obligation to permit



            Brooker to  file a "traverse" to  the government's opposition



            to  his motion, as  Brooker claims.   This is  so because the



            government  did not ask for dismissal of the   2255 motion as



            a  delayed or  successive petition.    See Barrett  v. United
                                                   ___ _______     ______



            States,  965 F.2d 1184, 1187 n.3  (1st Cir. 1992) (the   2255
            ______



            rules do not contemplate the filing of a traverse, unless the



            government's response asks for  dismissal of the motion under



            Rule 9 relative to delayed or successive motions).



                      On   appeal,  Brooker  has   made  new   claims  of



            ineffective  assistance of  counsel, proffering  a supporting



            affidavit which  was never  presented to the  district court.



            We decline to consider  his new claims.  See United States v.
                                                     ___ _____________



            Ocasio-Rivera,  991 F.2d  1,  3 (1st  Cir.  1993) ("It  is  a
            _____________



            bedrock  principle  in  this  circuit  that  issues  must  be



            squarely  raised  in the  district court  if  they are  to be



            preserved for appeal.  That principle applies unreservedly in



            the  criminal   sentencing  context.").     Brooker  has  not











                                         -3-





























            described any exceptional circumstances that  would warrant a



            different outcome.



                      Affirmed.
                      _________































































































                                         -4-