USCA1 Opinion

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT







                                 ____________________





        No. 97-2236



                                    UNITED STATES,



                                      Appellee,



                                          v.



                                GEORGE R. JORDAN, JR.,



                                Defendant, Appellant.





                                 ____________________



                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE



                     [Hon. D. Brock Hornby, U.S. District Judge]
                                            ___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________

                          Selya and Boudin, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________



                                 ____________________



            David  Beneman and  Levenson,  Vickerson  & Beneman  on brief  for
            ______________      _______________________________

        appellant.

            Jay P.  McCloskey, United  States Attorney, John  S. Gleason  III,
            _________________                           _____________________

        Assistant U.S. Attorney, and F. Mark Terison, Assistant U.S. Attorney,
                                     _______________

        on brief for appellee. 





                                 ____________________



                                  February 10, 1998

                                 ____________________





























                 Per  Curiam.  Upon careful review of the record, briefs,
                 ___________



            motion  for  summary affirmance,  and objection,  we conclude



            that the district court properly  applied the law of the case



            and was not required to  reconsider its decision not to group



            the  mail fraud and money laundering  counts under U.S.S.G.  



            3D1.2.   See United States  v. Bell, 988  F.2d 247,  250 (1st
                     ___ _____________     ____



            Cir. 1993).   In the context  of this appeal,  we perceive no



            need for further argument,  and we decline to revisit  United
                                                                   ______



            States v. Lombardi, 5 F.3d 568, 570-71 (1st Cir. 1993).
            ______    ________



                 Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.
                 ________   ___



































































                                         -2-