USCA1 Opinion

       [NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]

                 United States Court of Appeals

                     For the First Circuit











No. 98-1833



                          UNITED STATES,



                            Appellee,



                                v.



         DAVID ANTONIO SANCHEZ, a/k/a Gordo, a/k/a Goldo,



                      Defendant, Appellant.







           APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS



          [Hon. Frank H. Freedman, U.S. District Judge]







                              Before



                     Torruella, Chief Judge,

               Selya and Boudin, Circuit Judges.

                                

                                

                                

                                

                                

     John P. Crowley, III, and Hobbins, Gardner, Gardner & Murphy

on brief for appellant.

     Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney, and Ariane D. Vuono,

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











July 27, 1999







                                

                                





            Per Curiam.  Upon careful review of the briefs and

  the record, we conclude that defendant's claim of ineffective

  assistance of counsel cannot be reviewed on direct appeal.  The

  attorney's performance, as described by defendant, was not

  necessarily substandard, and the life sentence does not

  necessarily show that the attorney's performance resulted in

  prejudice to defendant.  If defendant believes that he has a

  viable claim, he may raise it in a proceeding under 28 U.S.C.

   2255.  See United States v. Mala, 7 F.3d 1058, 1063 (1st Cir.

  1993) ("We have held with a regularity bordering on the

  monotonous that fact-specific claims of ineffective assistance

  cannot make their debut on direct review of criminal

  convictions, but, rather, must originally be presented to and

  acted upon by the trial court.").

            Defendant's remaining contentions also are without

  merit.  The district court did not err in admitting the English

  translation of the transcription of the Spanish recording.  The

  government witnesses laid an adequate foundation, and there was

  no indication that the transcript or translation were

  inaccurate.  See United States v. Font-Ramirez, 944 F.2d 42, 48

  (1st Cir. 1991); United States v. Renfigo, 789 F.2d 975, 980

  (1st Cir. 1986).  Even if the material may have been highly

  inculpatory, it still was not subject to exclusion as unduly

  prejudicial.

            In determining the identity of the drug substance,

  the district court did not plainly err in relying on the

  undisputed information in the pre-sentence investigation

  report.  That information also was not inconsistent with the

  testimony at trial about defendant's drug dealings and the

  preparation of the drugs.

            Defendant's motion to dispense with oral argument and

  for expedited consideration is granted.

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