USCA1 Opinion

          May 15, 1995
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________


        No. 94-2108

                         HENRY H. AMSDEN, H.H. AMSDEN & SONS,

                               Plaintiffs, Appellants,

                                          v.

                      SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.


                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

                   [Hon. Joseph A. DiClerico, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

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

                                 ____________________

            Henry H. Amsden, on brief pro se.
            _______________
            Paul  M. Gagnon,  United States  Attorney, and  T. David  Plourde,
            _______________                                 _________________
        Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellees.


                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________


























                 Per Curiam.   We have reviewed  the parties' briefs  and
                 __________

            the  record on  appeal.  There  was no error  in the district

            court's dismissal of the complaint for lack of subject matter

            jurisdiction  nor  its denial  of  the  subsequent motion  to

            vacate on the additional ground of mootness.

                 Affirmed.  See Loc. R. 27.1.
                 _________  ___