USCA1 Opinion

                         [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                         FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                         ____________________





No. 97-1873





                        JORGE GONZALEZ-VAZQUEZ,



                        Petitioner, Appellant,



                                  v.



                       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,



                         Respondent, Appellee.



                         ____________________





             APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                    FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO



         [Hon. Raymond L. Acosta, U.S. Senior District Judge]



                         ____________________



                                Before



                        Boudin, Stahl and Lynch,

                            Circuit Judges.



                         ____________________



    Jorge Gonzalez-Vazquez on brief pro se.

    Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, Nelson Perez-Sosa,

Assistant United States Attorney, Rosa E. Rodriguez-Velez, Executive

Assistant United States Attorney, and Jose A. Quiles-Espinosa, Senior

Litigation Counsel, on brief for appellee.





                         ____________________

                                   

                             April 2, 1998

                         ____________________





           Per Curiam.  Jorge Gonzalez-Vazquez appeals pro se from

    the district court's dismissal of his motion pursuant to 28

    U.S.C.  2255.  Because the motion was filed before the

    Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA")

    took effect, AEDPA does not apply.

        Petitioner's central argument on appeal is that his

    attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel by failing

    to rebut the government's evidence in support of the two-level

    enhancement under U.S.S.G.  2D1.1(b)(1).  We reject that

    argument for substantially the same reasons stated by the

    district court in its Order Dismissing 28 U.S.C.  2255

    Petition, dated June 5, 1996.

        The remaining issues raised by petitioner in this appeal

    were not raised before the district court.  "This circuit

    religiously follows the rule that issues not presented to the

    district court cannot be raised on appeal."  Ouimette v. Moran,

    942 F.2d 1, 12 (1st Cir. 1991).  Even were we to consider those

    issues, they would not entitle petitioner to relief as they are

    entirely without merit.

        Affirmed.