USCA1 Opinion

        December 12, 1994       [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT



                                 ____________________


        No. 94-1804

                                   RICHARD BARBER,

                                Petitioner, Appellant,

                                          v.

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                Respondent, Appellee.


                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

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

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                 Selya, Circuit Judge,
                                        _____________
                         Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge, and
                                   ____________________
                                Boudin, Circuit Judge.
                                        _____________

                                 ____________________

            Richard I. Barber on brief pro se.
            _________________
            Donald  K.  Stern,  United  States  Attorney,  and Kevin  O'Regan,
            _________________                                  ______________
        Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.


                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________




























                      Per  Curiam.    The  denial of  appellant's  motion
                      ___________

            pursuant  to 28 U.S.C.   2255 is affirmed for essentially the
                                             ________

            reasons  contained in  the  district court's  Memorandum  and

            Order dated July 12, 1994.  













































                                         -2-