USCA1 Opinion

      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION--NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]

                 United States Court of Appeals

                     For the First Circuit

                                

                                







No. 97-2332

                                

                   UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,



                       Plaintiff, Appellee,



                                v.



           DAVID L. KINGSBURY AND ELIZABETH A. MASTERS,



                     Defendants, Appellants.







                   APPEAL FROM THE JUDGMENT OF

                THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                   FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

                                

          [Hon. Morton A. Brody, U.S. District Judge]

                                





                             Before

                                

                     Boudin, Circuit Judge,

                 Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge,

                   and Lynch, Circuit Judge.

                                

                                





     David L. Kingsbury and Elizabeth A. Masters on brief pro se.

     Loretta C. Argrett, Assistant Attorney General, Jay P.

McCloskey, United States Attorney, William S. Estabrook and John A.

Nolet, Attorneys, Tax Division, Department of Justice, on brief for

appellee. 











June 23, 1998







                                

                                



            Per Curiam.  We have carefully reviewed the parties'

    briefs and the record on appeal.  We affirm on grounds that the

    appellants  made no attempt to show that they are entitled to

    relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).  They have not shown that

    they had good cause for the default, a meritorious defense to

    the action, or any other grounds which would have entitled them

    to relief under Rule 60(b).  United States v. Proceeds of Sale

    of 3888 pounds Atlantic Sea Scallops, 857 F.2d 46, 49 (1st Cir.

    1988).  The provisions of 28 U.S.C.  1655 have no bearing on

    this issue because service below was not made pursuant to that

    statute.

              Affirmed.  Loc. R. 27.1.