USCA1 Opinion

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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, 923  F.2d


            221, 226 (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, 53 F.3d 1216, 1221-22 (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, 88 F.3d 21, 32 (1st Cir. 1996). 


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












                                         -2-