USCA1 Opinion

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]


                           UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT




                                ____________________



       No. 97-1754


                                   UNITED STATES,


                                      Appellee,


                                         v.


                                    REXHEP GASHI,


                                Defendant, Appellant.



                                ____________________


                    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS


                    [Hon. William G. Young, U.S. District Judge]


                                ____________________


                                       Before


                               Torruella, Chief Judge,

                          Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges.


                                ____________________


            James 
                 L. 
                   Sultan, 
                           Ch
                             arles W. Rankin and Rankin & Sultan on brief for

       appellant.

            Donald 
                  K. Stern, United States Attorney, and Theodore B. Heinrich,

       Assistant U.S. Attorney, on brief for appellee.



                                ____________________


                                  November 18, 1997

                                ____________________








                 Per 
                    Curiam. 
                            
                            Upon 
                                 careful review of the briefs and record,


            we 
              find 
                   no 
                      merit in defendant's contentions.  To the contrary,


            as we  read  the sentencing  transcript, the  district  court


            departed by two criminal history categories under U.S.S.G.  S


            4A1.3 and amply explained such departure by reference to  the


            seriousness  of  defendant's  conduct,  his  vacated  Florida


            conviction, and his high  risk of recidivism.  We cannot  say


            that the departure was unreasonable, and we perceive no abuse


            of discretion here.


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


































                                         -2-