USCA1 Opinion

                         [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                         FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                         ____________________





No. 97-2219





                            UNITED STATES,



                               Appellee,



                                  v.



   DANIEL J. ORTIZ-MEDINA, A/K/A FLAT TOP, A/K/A FLAT, A/K/A DEINI,



                         Defendant, Appellant.



                         ____________________





             APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                    FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO



           [Hon. Salvador E. Casellas, U.S. District Judge]



                         ____________________



                                Before



                         Boudin, Circuit Judge,

                     Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge,

                       and Lynch, Circuit Judge.



                         ____________________



    Lydia Lizarribar-Masini on brief for appellant.

    Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, Camille Velez-Rive and Nelson

Perez-Sosa, Assistant United States Attorneys, and Jose A. Quiles-

Espinosa, Senior Litigation Counsel, on brief for appellee.





                         ____________________



                            March 20, 1998

                         ____________________







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

    we perceive no merit in appellant's contentions.  

        The district court did not abuse its discretion in

    refusing appellant's request to withdraw his guilty plea.  The

    district court weighed the proper factors and sensibly

    concluded that appellant had not shown a fair and just reason

    to withdraw the plea.  That conclusion was well supported by

    appellant's answers during the regular plea colloquy, along

    with the testimony of appellant's former attorney.  We cannot

    say that the district court was required to adopt appellant's

    subsequent, contradictory statements, which the district court

    found to lack credibility.  See United States v. Marrero-

    Rivera, 124 F.3d 342, 347-48 (1st Cir. 1997).

        Further, the district court did not abuse its discretion

    in imposing a 2-level weapons enhancement under U.S.S.G. 

    2D1.1(b)(1).  That enhancement was amply supported by the

    government's version of the facts as agreed to by appellant,

    along with other information about the reasonably foreseeable

    violent nature of the conspiracy.  At sentencing, the district

    court was not required to allow appellant to attempt to impeach

    a particular co-defendant's prior testimony on that point.  SeeFed. R. Crim. P. 32(c)(1).

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