USCA1 Opinion

       [NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]

                 United States Court of Appeals

                     For the First Circuit











No. 98-1975



                          UNITED STATES,



                            Appellee,



                                v.



                     ANGEL C. HURTADO-ARAUJO,

                A/K/A MARCELINO MICOLTA QUINTERO,



                      Defendant, Appellant.







           APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                 FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO



          [Hon. Jose Antonio Fuste, U.S. District Judge]







                              Before



                      Lynch, Circuit Judge,

                 Bownes, Senior Circuit Judge,

                   and Lipez, Circuit Judge.

                                

                                

                                

                                

     Angel Cecilio Hurtado Araujo on brief pro se.

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

Assistant United States Attorney, and Michelle Morales, Assistant

United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.











June 8, 1999







                                

                                

            Per Curiam.  Appellant Angel Cecilio Hurtado-Araujo

  appeals from the denial of his request for a prompt probation-

  revocation hearing.  In that motion, appellant relied solely on

  the Interstate Agreement on  Detainers Act.  See 18 U.S.C. App. 

  Yet that enactment does not apply to detainers based on

  probation-violation charges.  See Carchman v. Nash, 473 U.S.

  716 (1985).  We add that appellant's principal concern--that he

  will lose the opportunity to be sentenced to a concurrent

  prison term--is largely misplaced in any event.  Although

  U.S.S.G.  7B1.3(f) calls for a consecutive sentence in this

  context, that provision is "advisory rather than mandatory." 

  United States v. O'Neil, 11 F.3d 292, 301 n.11 (1st Cir. 1993);

  accord, e.g., United States v. Throneburg, 87 F.3d 851, 854 (6th

  Cir. 1996).  The possibility of appellant receiving a

  concurrent sentence once the revocation hearing is held thus

  cannot be excluded.  We of course intimate no view as to the

  appropriateness of any such sentence.

            Affirmed.  See Loc. R. 27.1.