USCA1 Opinion

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS



                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT



                                      __________



          No. 93-1898



                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,



                                          v.



                                  MICHAEL B. LONDON,

                                 Defendant, Appellant

                                       _______



                                        Before



                               Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                          ___________

                      Coffin and Bownes, Senior Circuit Judges,
                                         _____________________

                 Selya, Cyr, Boudin, Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
                                                      ______________

                                      __________



                                    ORDER OF COURT



                              Entered:  October 20, 1995

                                      __________





                    The panel of judges that rendered  the decision in this



          case having voted to deny the petition for rehearing submitted by



          the appellant and the  suggestion for the holding of  a rehearing



          en banc having  been carefully  considered by the  judges of  the



          court in regular active service and a majority of said judges not



          having voted to order that the  appeal be heard or reheard by the



          court en banc.
                __ ____



                    It is  ordered  that a  petition  for rehearing  and  a



          suggestion for rehearing en banc be denied.
                                   __ ____



                             TORRUELLA,  Chief  Judge   (Dissenting).     I
                             TORRUELLA,  Chief  Judge   (Dissenting).
                                         ____________



          believe the panel opinion in this case is contrary to the Supreme



          Court's  decision in  Ratzlaf v.  United States,  114 S. Ct.  655
                                _______     _____________





























          (1994).  I reach this conclusion for primarily two reasons.



                    First,  Ratzlaf  held  that   in  order  to  sustain  a
                            _______



          conviction  for  "structuring"  under  31 U.S.C.     5324(3)  the



          government  must prove  that the  defendant acted  with knowledge



          that  his  conduct  was   unlawful.    In  my  view,   the  clear



          implication, if  not the plain  language, of Ratzlaf  precludes a
                                                       _______



          structuring conviction based on  the "reckless disregard"  theory



          utilized  in this  case.   Second, in  denying the  petition, the



          majority virtually ignores  the fact that our  decision in United
                                                                     ______



          States v. Aversa, 984 F.2d 493  (1st Cir. 1993) (en banc),  which
          ______    ______



          upheld  a reckless  disregard jury  instruction, was  vacated and



          remanded by the Supreme Court "for further consideration in light



          of"  Ratzlaf.   See  Donovan v.  United  States, 114  S. Ct.  873
               _______    ___  _______     ______________



          (1994).   Because the Court  had just decided  Ratzlaf, one would
                                                         _______



          think  that if  Aversa was  consistent with  that case  the Court
                          ______



          would  simply have  denied  the writ  of  certiorari.   The  most



          logical  inference from this state  of affairs is  that the Court



          viewed our pre-Ratzlaf decision in Aversa as contrary to Ratzlaf,
                         _______             ______                _______



          and wanted to give us a chance to remedy it.  We should do so.



                    Because  I  believe  the  panel  opinion  misinterprets



          settled  law, I  dissent  from the  denial  of the  petition  for



          rehearing or rehearing en banc.
                                 __ ____