USCA1 Opinion

      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION--NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]

                                

                 United States Court of Appeals

                     For the First Circuit

                                

                                







No. 97-2379



                          UNITED STATES,



                            Appellee,



                                v.



                         KIRK A. HENSON,



                      Defendant, Appellant.







          APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                                

                   FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

                                

[Hon. Gene Carter, U.S. District Judge]

                                





                             Before

                                

                     Torruella, Chief Judge,

                 Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge,

                   and Stahl, Circuit Judge.

                                

                                





     William Maselli on brief for appellant.

     Jay P. McCloskey, United States Attorney, George T. Dilworthand F. Mark Terison, Assistant United States Attorneys, on brief

for appellee.











June 10, 1998







                                

                                

            Per Curiam.  Upon careful review of the briefs and

    record, we perceive no merit in defendant's appellate

    arguments:  

              (1)  The factual findings supporting the suppression

    ruling were not clearly erroneous, notwithstanding defendant's

    contrary view of the circumstances of his inculpatory statement

    to his probation officer.  

              (2)  The district court acted within its considerable

    discretion in limiting defendant's repetitious cross-

    examination.  Any error in allowing into evidence the probation

    officer's memorandum was harmless.  

              (3)  The district court applied appropriate legal

    standards in denying defendant's claims for downward departure. 

    We have no jurisdiction to review the discretionary bases of

    those denials.

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