USCA1 Opinion

       [NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]

                 United States Court of Appeals

                     For the First Circuit











No. 98-1272



                          UNITED STATES,



                            Appellee,



                                v.



                         ANTHONY EL ZEIN,



                      Defendant, Appellant.







           APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS



             [Hon. Mark L. Wolf, U.S. District Judge]







                              Before



                     Torruella, Chief Judge,

               Selya and Boudin, Circuit Judges.

                                

                                

                                

                                

     Colleen E. Carafotes on brief for appellant.

     Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney, and John M. Griffin,

Assistant U.S. Attorney, on brief for appellee.











July 20, 1999







                                

                                









            Per Curiam.  Upon careful review of the briefs and

  record, it appears that only one of defendant's several issues

  was raised below or preserved for appeal.  As to that issue

  concerning a downward departure, the district court's decision,

  fairly read, was discretionary, and we lack jurisdiction to

  review such a decision.  See United States v. Santos, 131 F.3d

  16, 21 (1st Cir. 1997).  In any event, the fact that

  defendant's money laundering was not related to drug

  trafficking or organized crime did not take it outside the

  heartland of money laundering offenses subject to U.S.S.G. 

  2S1.1.  See United States v. Piero, 32 F.3d 611, 619-21 (1st

  Cir. 1994).

            The rest of defendant's issues were not raised before

  the district court and so were waived for appeal.  See United

  States v. LiCausi, 167 F.3d 36, 44-45 (1st Cir. 1999). 

  Nonetheless, we have reviewed those issues to the extent

  possible on the existing record, and we have found no plain

  error that would lead us to disturb any part of the judgment. 

  See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 733-34 (1993).

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