USCA1 Opinion

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________





        No. 97-1913

         



                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,



                                      Appellee,



                                          v.



                                   PETER E. TARBOX,



                                Defendant, Appellant.



                                 ____________________





                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE



                     [Hon. Morton A. Brody, U.S. District Judge]
                                            ___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________

                           Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________



                                 ____________________



            Wayne S. Moss on brief for appellant.
            _____________

            Jay P.  McCloskey,  United States  Attorney, Timothy  Wing and  F.
            _________________                            _____________      __

        Mark   Terison,  Assistant  United  States  Attorneys,  on  brief  for
        ______________

        appellee.





                                 ____________________



                                 November 19, 1997

                                 ____________________



































                      Per  Curiam.     Defendant-appellant  Peter  Tarbox
                      ___________



            appeals from the  district court's denial of  his suppression



            motion.   The sole issue  on appeal is whether  the searching



            officers violated  the Fourth Amendment  because they entered



            appellant's  home and began the search after receiving notice



            that a search warrant had  been issued but before the warrant



            was  in  their  physical  possession.    The  district  court



            properly  concluded  that  our holding  in  United  States v.
                                                        ______________



            Bonner,  808  F.2d  864, 869  (1st  Cir.  1986) dictates  the
            ______



            outcome  in this  case.   Bonner  has not  been overruled  by
                                      ______



            Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U.S. 927 (1995), as appellant argues.
            ______    ________



            Therefore, the order  denying appellant's motion  to suppress



            and the  judgment of  conviction are affirmed.   See  Loc. R.
                                                 ________    ___



            27.1.



















































                                         -2-