USCA1 Opinion

                      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                      FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT









                         ____________________

No. 97-2359



                  PEDRO M. SERRANO-FIGUEROA, ET AL.,



                        Plaintiffs, Appellants,



                                  v.



                     BANPONCE CORPORATION, ET AL.,



                        Defendants, Appellees.

                          ___________________



No. 97-2360



                  PEDRO M. SERRANO-FIGUEROA, ET AL.,



                        Plaintiffs, Appellees,



                                  v.



                     BANPONCE CORPORATION, ET AL.,

                        Defendants, Appellees.

                         ____________________



                       EMILIO E. PINERO FERRER,



                         Defendant, Appellant.



                                   

                         ____________________



             APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                    FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO



            [Hon. Daniel R. Dominguez, U.S. District Judge]

                         ____________________



                                Before



                         Boudin, Circuit Judge,

                     Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge,

                       and Lynch, Circuit Judge.

                        ______________________



    Edelmiro Salas Garcia on brief for appellants Pedro M. Serrano-

Figueroa, et al.

    Pedro J. Manzano-Yates, Beatriz M. Rodriguez-Burgos, and Fiddler,

Gonzalez & Rodriguez on brief for appellees Banponce Corporation, Banco

Popular De Puerto Rico, and Marta Galera.

    Juan R. Marchand Quintero, Ana L. Toledo and Rivera Cestero &

Marchand Quintero on brief for appellee-cross-appellant Emilio E. Pinero

Ferrer.





                         ____________________



                            April 7, 1998

                         ____________________











































































      Per Curiam.  As to appeal no. 97-2359, upon careful review

    of the briefs and record, we conclude that plaintiffs'

    "jurisdictional" argument regarding 28 U.S.C.  636(b)(1) is

    completely frivolous.  We reach this conclusion essentially for

    the reasons stated by the district court in its order dated

    September 25, 1997.  Plaintiffs have not developed any other

    argument, so we will not consider any other aspect of the

    judgment.  See United States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1, 17 (1st

    Cir. 1990). 

        In light of our conclusion that plaintiffs and their

    attorney have prosecuted a frivolous appeal, we grantdefendants' motions for sanctions under Fed. R. App. P. 38. 

    See also 28 U.S.C.  1927.  We therefore direct plaintiffs,

    jointly and severally, to pay double costs, and we direct

    plaintiffs' attorney personally to pay defendants' reasonable

    attorney's fees for appeal no. 97-2359.  See United States v.

    Nesglo, Inc., 744 F.2d 887, 892 (1st Cir. 1984).  Defendants

    are directed to file with this court and serve upon plaintiffs,

    within 15 days after the date of this opinion, their bills of

    costs and attorney's fees incurred for appeal no. 97-2359. 

    Within 10 days after such service upon them, plaintiffs may

    file and serve any objections to those bills.  Thereafter we

    will issue an order taxing the double costs and the reasonable

    attorney's fees.

        As to appeal no. 97-2360, we conclude that the denial of

    defendant's motion for sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)

    was within the district court's considerable discretion.  On

    the record before us, we must defer to the district court's

    finding that plaintiffs' motions were based on mistake of law

    and not wrongful purposes.

        Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc.

    R. 27.1.  The defendants' motions for Rule 38 sanctions are

    granted as provided in this opinion.