USCA1 Opinion

       [NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]

                 United States Court of Appeals

                     For the First Circuit











No. 98-1849



                          UNITED STATES,



                            Appellee,



                                v.



                          FELIPE BERNAL,



                      Defendant, Appellant.







           APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                 FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO



        [Hon. Juan M. Perez-Gimenez, U.S. District Judge]







                              Before



                      Lynch, Circuit Judge,

                 Bownes, Senior Circuit Judge,

                   and Lipez, Circuit Judge.

                                

                                

                                

                                

     Felipe Bernal on brief pro se.

     Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, Jorge E. Vega-Pacheco,

Assistant United States Attorney, and Camille Velez-Rive, Assistant

United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.













June 17, 1999





  

  

            Per Curiam.    We have reviewed the parties' briefs

  and the record and affirm the judgment of the district court

  denying the Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a) motion of Felipe Bernal. 

  First, we note that since defendant did not object to the

  Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge   despite an

  adequate warning regarding the consequences of the failure to

  do so   he has waived the right to appellate review.  See

  Henley Drilling Co. v. McGee, 36 F.3d 143, 150-51 & n.19 (1st

  Cir. 1994); Park Motor Mart, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 616 F.2d

  603, 605 (1st Cir. 1980).

            In any event, we agree with the Report and

  Recommendation that the motion was meritless.  The maximum term

  of imprisonment for each of the offenses to which defendant

  pleaded guilty was life imprisonment.  See Gozlon-Peretz v.

  United States, 498 U.S. 395, 401, 404-10 (1991) (tracing the

  history of the federal drug enforcement penalty scheme and

  holding that  1002 of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, which

  increased the maximum punishment for large-scale drug offenses

  to life imprisonment, became effective on October 27, 1986). 

  Also, it is well-settled that "consecutive sentences for a

  substantive drug offense and a conspiracy to commit such an

  offense are . . .  permissible."  United States v. Cerro, 775

  F.2d 908, 910 (7th Cir. 1985); United States v. Wylie, 625 F.2d

  1371, 1381 (9th Cir. 1980).

            Affirmed.  See Local Rule 27.1.