USCA1 Opinion

                         [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                         FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                         ____________________





No. 97-2274



                       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,



                               Appellee,



                                  v.



           HENRY CIFUENTES-RIASCOS, A/K/A WILLIAM ALLEGRIA,

      A/K/A CARLOS OTERO-RIVERA, A/K/A HENRY CINFUENTES-RIASCOS,



                         Defendant, Appellant.



                         ____________________





             APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                    FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO



          [Hon. Carmen Consuelo Cerezo, U.S. District Judge]



                         ____________________



                                Before



                        Torruella, Chief Judge,

                   Selya and Boudin, Circuit Judges.



                         ____________________



    Henry Cifuentes on brief pro se.

    Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, Jose A. Quiles-Espinosa,

Warren Vazquez and Nelson Perez-Sosa, Assistant United States Attorneys,

on brief for appellee.





                         ____________________

                                  

                           March 12, 1998

                        ____________________







      Per Curiam.  After this court affirmed appellant's

    conviction, the district court no longer had the power to

    reconsider or modify appellant's sentence.   Consequently, the

    district court properly denied appellant's "Motion for

    Modification of Imprisonment," which asked the district court

    to reduce appellant's sentence for acceptance of

    responsibility, a reduction the district court had expressly

    denied at sentencing.  If appellant's complaint is that his

    trial counsel forced appellant to go to trial against his will

    and would not allow appellant to plead guilty, that type of

    complaint could not be considered by the district court in the

    context of appellant's "Motion for Modification of

    Imprisonment," but instead would need to be presented in a 

    2255 petition.  As appellant did not ask the district court to

    treat his motion as a  2255 petition, the district court did

    not err in failing to so treat it. 

    Affirmed.  Loc. R. 27.1.