[NOT FOR PUBLICATION--NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]

United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

No. 95-1423

UNITED STATES,

Appellee,

v.

JAMES MICHAEL MURPHY, JR.,

Defendant, Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[Hon. Douglas P. Woodlock, U.S. District Judge]

Before

Boudin, Circuit Judge, Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge, and Lynch, Circuit Judge.

James Michael Murphy, Jr. on brief pro se. Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney, James B. Farmer and Stephen P. Heymann, Assistant United States Attorneys, and Kathleen A. Felton, Attorney, Department of Justice, on brief for appellee.

May 19, 1998

Per Curiam. Upon careful review of the briefs and the portions of the record transmitted to this court, we conclude that defendant's conviction and sentence should be upheld. None of the issues briefed by defendant suggest to us that a new trial is warranted. Particularly: 1. The district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the Joyce affidavit should be admitted. In our view, the circumstances in which the affidavit was made provide indicia of reliability sufficient to overcome defendant's arguments about the hearsay rule and the Confrontation Clause. 2. The district court also acted within its discretion in admitting the limited evidence as to Methuen and Quinn, as relevant to establish the identity of the Fitchburg participants, and we cannot say that such evidence was overly prejudicial in the circumstances. 3. We reject defendant's arguments about the testimony of Ryan. 4. We cannot say that the district court abused its considerable discretion in dismissing certain jurors whose voir dire responses were substantially incomplete. 5. We find no abuse of discretion in the denial without prejudice of defendant's initial non-specific motion for investigative services. 6. Defendant's allegations of government misconduct are unsupported by the record. 7. We find no merit whatsoever in defendant's claim that his federal sentence is improper in relation to a pre- existing state sentence, even assuming that such claim would be within the scope of our jurisdiction for this appeal. 8. Having found no specific error among those alleged by defendant, we cannot find that any cumulative error warrants reversal here. Defendant's "motion for leave to file additional due process violation" is denied. We have no jurisdiction in this appeal to consider the post-judgment events of which defendant complains. The judgment is affirmed. See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.