USCA1 Opinion

      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION--NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]



                 United States Court of Appeals

                     For the First Circuit

                                

                                







No. 98-1057



                          UNITED STATES,



                            Appellee,



                                v.



                        GLENN P. LACEDRA,



                      Defendant, Appellant.







           APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS



         [Hon. Reginald C. Lindsay, U.S. District Judge]







                              Before



                      Boudin, Circuit Judge,

                 Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge,

                   and Lynch, Circuit Judge.

                                

                                





     Glenn P. Lacedra on brief pro se.

     Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney, and Robert E.

Richardson, Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for

appellee.











May 28, 1998







                                

                                

           Per Curiam.  Pro se appellant, Glenn P. LaCedra,

    appeals from the district court's partial denial of his Fed. R.

    Crim. P. 41(e) motion seeking the return of certain property

    which had been seized pursuant to a search warrant, or, in the

    alternative, for compensation for the seized property.   We

    affirm.

             The court did not abuse its discretion or commit

    error in declining to return certain firearms and related

    property to LaCedra, who is a convicted felon.  See 18 U.S.C.

     922(g)(1) (making it unlawful for persons convicted of crimes

    punishable by imprisonment for greater than one year to possess

    firearms or ammunition).  Nor did the court abuse its

    discretion or err in failing to order compensation for the

    firearms and related property since the government had

    represented that it would surrender these items to any third

    party lawfully purchasing them from LaCedra.  

             The district court also properly declined to order

    the return of certain "investigative paperwork" casually

    identified by LaCedra.  As best we can glean from the record,

    the materials in question have no market value but were for the

    most part materials either used in connection with the planned

    murder or capable of being used in another attempt.  That is

    reason enough for the district court to decline to order the

    government to restore those materials to LaCedra.

             Affirmed.  See Loc. R. 27.1.