USCA1 Opinion

                                

      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION--NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]

                 United States Court of Appeals

                     For the First Circuit











No. 97-1952



                          UNITED STATES,



                            Appellee,



                               v.

                                

                BIBA KAJTAZI, A/K/A ROBERT CRUZ,

                                

                     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.

                                





     Frank A. Rubino on brief for appellant.

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

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

Senior Litigation Counsel, on brief for appellee.











August 11, 1998







                                

                                





                                          

            Per Curiam.  Upon careful review of the briefs and

    record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its

    discretion in considering, inter alia, the polygraph test

    results in determining whether defendant met the requirements

    of U.S.S.G.  5C1.2(5).  See U.S.S.G.  6A1.3(a); see alsoUnited States v. Santiago-Gonzalez, 66 F.3d 3, 7 n.1 (1st Cir.

    1995).  In any event, defendant did not raise before the

    district court the broad claim that polygraph results are per

    se inadmissible, and so that claim is forfeited and may not be

    raised on appeal.  Further, in light of all the evidence about

    defendant's debriefings, the district court did not clearly err

    in denying defendant safety valve relief.  See United States v.

    Montanez, 82 F.3d 520, 523 (1st Cir. 1996).  And we perceive no

    basis whatsoever for defendant's claim that the government

    breached the plea agreement.

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