USCA1 Opinion

          November 10, 1993
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________


        No. 93-1537

                                   JOSEPH DESFONDS,

                                Petitioner, Appellant,

                                          v.

                            COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS,

                                Respondent, Appellee.


                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                     [Hon. A. David Mazzone, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

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

                                 ____________________

            Richard M. Passalacqua on brief for appellant.
            ______________________
            Scott Harshbarger,  Attorney General, and  Elisabeth J.  Medvedow,
            _________________                          ______________________
        Assistant Attorney General, on brief for appellee.


                                 ____________________


                                 ____________________






















                      Per Curiam.  After carefully reviewing the parties'
                      __________

            briefs  and the  record, we  find that  this appeal  does not

            present a substantial question.   See Local Rule 27.1.  As  a
                                              ___

            result,  the  judgment  of the  district  court  is summarily

            affirmed  for  essentially  the  reasons  set  forth  in  its
            ________

            thorough Memorandum and Order dated April 9, 1993.