July 1, 1993

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]


                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________


        No. 93-1120 

                                CHARLES MERRILL MOUNT,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.


                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                       [Hon. Rya W. Zobel, U.S. District Judge]
                                           ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                 Breyer, Chief Judge,
                                         ___________
                           Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________

                                 ____________________

            Charles Merrill Mount on brief pro so.
            _____________________
            A. John Pappalardo, United States  Attorney, and Tobin  N. Harvey,
            __________________                               ________________
        Assistant  United States Attorney, on  Memorandum in Support of Motion
        for Summary Disposition for appellee.


                                 ____________________


                                 ____________________














                      Per Curiam.  In  this most recent challenge to  his
                      __________

            1988  conviction  for  interstate  transportation  of  stolen

            property (one of a  series of such challenges he  has brought

            pursuant to  28 U.S.C.    2255), petitioner alleges  that the

            evidence was insufficient  to support the  jury's finding  of

            guilt.   In particular, he contends that the testimony of two

            government witnesses  was  unworthy  of  credence.    In  our

            decision  on direct  appeal, we  discussed such  testimony at

            some  length and found that the jury was justified in relying

            thereon.   See United States  v. Mount, 896 F.2d 612, 616-20
                       ___ _____________     _____

            (1st Cir. 1990).   The arguments now advanced  by petitioner,

            even  if  not  procedurally  barred,  provide  no  basis  for

            revisiting this issue.

                      Affirmed.     
                      _________