USCA1 Opinion

      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION--NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]

                 United States Court of Appeals

                     For the First Circuit









No. 99-1087



                          BARRY LEHMAN,



                       Plaintiff, Appellee,



                                v.



                    REVOLUTION PORTFOLIO, LLC,



                 Third-Party Plaintiff, Appellee,



                                v.



                        STUART A. ROFFMAN,



                Third-Party Defendant, Appellant.







           APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS



             [Hon. Mark L. Wolf, U.S. District Judge]







                              Before



                      Selya, Circuit Judge,

                                

                Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,

                                

                   and Boudin, Circuit Judge.

                                

                                

                                

     David Berman for appellant.

     Paul M. McDermott with whom Jonathan W. Fitch and Sally &

Fitch were on brief for third-party plaintiff, appellee Revolution

Portfolio, LLC.









SEPTEMBER 23, 1999







                                

                                

  Per Curiam.  The appeal before us is from the district

court's denial of a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) to revisit 

the earlier judgment granted in favor of the appellee's predecessor 

in interest.  The judgement sought to be reopened was affirmed by 

this court in Lehman v. Revolution Portfolio LLC, 166 F.3d 389 (1st

Cir. 1999), which provides the pertinent background.

  Having considered the record and the arguments of both

sides, we are satisfied that several of the grounds on which

appellant urges that the judgment be reopened are ones that were or

should properly have been submitted to the district court prior to

its entry of summary judgment; appellant does not show any adequate

justification for considering them at this late date, apart from

his disagreement with the legal conclusions of the district court.

See Hoult v. Hoult, 57 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 1995) (wrongly decided

point of law not grounds for relief under Rule 60(b)).  

  There are two other arguments that appellant claims have

only become available subsequent to the summary judgment due to

changed circumstances or newly revealed facts.  Without deciding

whether this avoids the Rule 60(b) bar, it is enough to say that

the district court rejected both arguments on the merits, and we

agree with the district court's reasoning and see no need for

further discussion of the assignments of error.

  Affirmed.