[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

No. 96-1879

HECTOR PAGES, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs, Appellees,

v.

MANUEL FEINGOLD,

Defendant, Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

[Hon. Jose Antonio Fuste, U.S. District Judge]

Before

Torruella, Chief Judge,

Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges.

Harry Hertzberg on brief for appellant.

Jesus E. Cuza, Ina M. Berlingeri-Vincenty and Goldman Antonetti &

Cordova on brief for appellees.

May 6, 1997

Per Curiam. Upon careful review of the briefs and

record, we conclude that this appeal clearly presents no

substantial question and that summary disposition is

appropriate. See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.

We further conclude that, for the reasons stated in the

May 8, 1996, order, the district court acted within its

discretion in entering default against defendant.

Defendant's repeated failures to comply with discovery and

other orders justified that sanction, of which defendant had

been warned. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C).

Further, for the reasons stated in the opinion and order

dated June 7, 1996, Pages v. Feingold,

(D.P.R. 1996), the district court properly entered judgment

for plaintiff. The district court's findings that the

letters written by defendant were false and maliciously

published, that plaintiff suffered damages thereby, and that

plaintiff was a private figure, were amply supported by the

evidence presented at trial and consistent with applicable

Puerto Rico law as cited by the district court. And, we find

no factual or legal basis for defendant's assertion of a

qualified immunity defense, particularly in light of the

default.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in

denying defendant's motion to recuse. The various remarks

about which defendant complains do not create a reasonable

-2-

doubt concerning the district judge's impartiality. See

United States v. Lopez,

(1st Cir. 1991).

Plaintiff's motion to dismiss this appeal and for

sanctions is granted in part. In light of the numerous

violations of the appellate rules regarding the form and

content of the brief and appendix, we are persuaded that an

award of sanctions is appropriate. See Fed. R. App. P. 28 &

30; Reyes-Garcia v. Rodriguez & Del Valle, Inc.,

(1st Cir. 1996). Therefore, we award double costs to

plaintiff, to be taxed jointly and severally against

defendant and his attorney. See Fed. R. App. P. 38.

Affirmed.

-3-