USCA1 Opinion

                         [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                         FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                         ____________________





No. 97-1292



                          SAMSON OMOSEFUNMI,



                              Petitioner,



                                  v.



                    CHARLES T. COBB, COMMISSIONER,

                IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,



                              Respondent.

                         ____________________





             APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                   FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS



             [Hon. Nancy J. Gertner, U.S. District Judge]



                         ____________________



                                Before



                        Torruella, Chief Judge,

                   Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges.



                         ____________________



    Samson Omosefunmi on brief pro se.

    Frank W. Hunger, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, David

M. McConnell, Assistant Director, and James A. Hunolt, Attorney, Office

of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, Department of Justice, on

brief for respondent.

    

                         ____________________



                           March 16, 1998

                        ____________________

                                  

                                  

                                  

                                  

                                  

      Per Curiam.  Upon careful review of the briefs and record, we

    conclude that the district court properly dismissed

    petitioner's challenge to his detention pending deportation. 

    Particularly, we find no merit in petitioner's contention

    regarding the finality of his 1992 convictions, see White v.

    Immigration & Naturalization Service, 17 F.3d 475, 479 (1st

    Cir. 1994), even assuming that contention were properly

    before this court in the context of this appeal.  Further, as

    petitioner was not subjected to mandatory detention under the

    provisions of  440(c) of the Antiterrorism and Effective

    Death Penalty Act, we will not address his contentions

    regarding those provisions.

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