USCA1 Opinion

          February 23, 1995

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT







                                 ____________________


        No. 94-1876 

                                 ANGEL TORRES-LOPEZ,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.


                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO


                 [Hon. Jaime Pieras, Jr., Senior U.S. District Judge]
                                          __________________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

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

                                 ____________________

            Angel Torres-Lopez on brief pro se.
            __________________
            Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney,  and Salixto Medina-Malav ,
            _____________                               _____________________
        Deputy Chief,  Criminal Division, United States  Attorney's Office, on
        brief for appellee.


                                 ____________________












                                 ____________________


                      Per  Curiam.  Petitioner Angel Torres-Lopez appeals
                      ___________

            the denial of a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C.   2255 to vacate

            his judgment of  conviction.  After  carefully reviewing  the

            record  and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgment

            of the district court for the reasons stated in its Opinion &

            Order dated July 14, 1994.  We add only two comments.

                      1.   On appeal, petitioner avers  that the district

            court abused its discretion  in failing to hold a  hearing on

            the    2255 petition.   First, petitioner did  not raise this

            issue below.  In any  event, we do not find any merit  to it.

            Where a    2255 motion  arguably is adequate  on its face,  a

            hearing  is  not necessary  if  the  motion is  "conclusively

            refuted as to the  alleged facts by the files  and records of

            the case."  United States v.  DiCarlo, 575 F.2d 952, 954 (1st
                        _____________     _______

            Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 834 (1978) (internal  quotation
                   ____________

            marks  and citation omitted).   The motion here involves only

            the  application  of certain  principles  of  law to  largely

            undisputed  facts.   Thus, the  rule that material  issues of

            fact may not be decided without an evidentiary hearing is not

            applicable.  See id.   "Moreover, if the claim is  based upon
                         ___ ___

            facts with which the  trial court, through . .  . observation

            at trial, is familiar, the court may make findings without an

            additional hearing . . . . "  Id.
                                          ___

                      2.    This  brings  us  to  the  second   issue  --

            petitioner's assertion  that the district  court judge should

            have recused himself.  Again,  petitioner did not raise  this

            claim below.   The only  basis for this  claim is that  the  




















            2255  motion  required  the  judge  to  make  a  new  factual

            determination on a question  as to which he already  had made

            an allegedly erroneous finding.  "Prior adverse rulings alone

            cannot,  of course,  be the  basis for  a motion  to recuse."

            Panzardi-Alvarez  v. United  States, 879  F.2d 975,  984 (1st
            ________________     ______________

            Cir. 1989), cert. denied,  493 U.S. 1082 (1990).  It  also is
                        ____________

            not sufficient  to  merely  allege that  a  judge  is  biased

            because he had been  involved in petitioner's trial.   Id. at
                                                                   ___

            985.  Aside from the claim of the allegedly erroneous ruling,

            petitioner fails  to present  any facts that  would establish

            bias on the  judge's part.  Finally, it is  appropriate for a

            judge to determine that a   2255 motion can be denied without

            a hearing even if he was the judge at trial.  See id.
                                                          ___ ___

                      The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
                                                            ________

























                                         -3-