USCA1 Opinion

      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION--NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]



                 United States Court of Appeals

                     For the First Circuit

                                







No. 97-1481



                JOHN OTTENBERG AND PAUL E. SOMMER,



                      Plaintiffs, Appellees,



                                v.



                VANGUARD FIDUCIARY TRUST, ET AL.,



                      Defendants, Appellees.







                        SHANTEE MAHARAJ,

                                

                     Defendant, Appellant.

                                          

                                

          APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                                

               FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                                

         [Hon. Richard G. Stearns, U.S. District Judge]

                                





                             Before

                                

                      Selya, Circuit Judge,

                 Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge,

                   and Boudin, Circuit Judge.

                                

                                





     Shantee Maharaj on brief pro se.











June 12, 1998







                                     Per Curiam.  As we stated in our order of November

    17, 1997, because the district court remanded this case due to

    defects in the removal procedure and/or lack of subject matter

    jurisdiction, we do not have jurisdiction to review that

    determination, whether or not erroneous, on appeal or via

    mandamus.  See Thermtron Prods., Inc. v. Hermansdorfer, 423

    U.S. 336, 343 (1976); Gravitt v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co.,

    430 U.S. 723, 723-24 (1977) (per curiam); 28 U.S.C.  1447(c)-

    (d).

              While we do have jurisdiction to review the order of

    the district court requiring appellant to pay the receiver the

    attorney's fees incurred as a result of the removal, seeBallard's Serv. Ctr., Inc. v. Transue, 865 F.2d 447, 448 (1st

    Cir. 1989) (per curiam); see also 28 U.S.C.  1447(c),

    appellant has failed to demonstrate that the district court

    abused its discretion in making this award.

              Therefore, the order of the district court directing

    appellant to pay $1,968.75 in attorney's fees is affirmed.