[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                           UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT


                                 ____________________


        No. 93-2063 

                              FRANK P. GIFFORD, ET AL.,

                                     Appellants,

                                          v.

                                  KEY BANK OF MAINE,

                                      Appellee.


                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

                     [Hon. D. Brock Hornby, U.S. District Judge]
                                            ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Cyr, Boudin and Stahl,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            Frank Gifford and Elaine Gifford on brief pro se.
            _____________     ______________
            Jana S. Stabile and Michael S. Haenn on brief for appellee.
            _______________     ________________


                                 ____________________

                                     July 7, 1994
                                 ____________________



























                      Per Curiam.  Appellants,  former chapter 7 debtors,
                      __________

            appeal  a district court  order affirming a  bankruptcy court

            order  dismissing appellants' second  motion to  reopen their

            chapter  7  proceedings,   this  time  for  the   purpose  of

            challenging appellee's  right  to  enforce  its  real  estate

            mortgage against debtors' residence.  Upon careful review, we

            summarily  affirm  the  dismissal order  as  appellants  have

            demonstrated no abuse of discretion.

                      Affirmed.  See Loc. R. 27.1.
                      ________   ___



































                                         -2-