United States v. Palmer

Opinion

USCA1 Opinion

          September 17, 1992    [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

____________________

No. 91-2274

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                 Plaintiff, Appellee,

                                          v.

                                ANN M. PALMER, ET AL.,

                               Defendants, Appellants.

____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                     [Hon. Robert E. Keeton, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                 Breyer, Chief Judge,
                                         ___________
                           Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                     ____________________
                              and Selya, Circuit Judge.
                                         _____________

                                 ____________________

            Peter R. Tritsch on brief for appellant Ann M. Palmer.
            ________________
            Peter R. Tritsch on brief pro se.
            ________________
            Philip F. Mulvey, Jr. on brief pro se.
            _____________________

____________________

____________________
                      Per  Curiam.    The  district  court's   denial  of
                      ___________

            appellants'   various   motions  for   attorneys'   fees  and

            sanctions,  and   for   reconsideration,  is   affirmed   for

            substantially  the reasons  stated  by  the  district  court.

            Having  carefully  reviewed the  record  and  the briefs,  we

conclude  that  the district  court adequately  explained its

            reasons  for denying sanctions.  The court's findings are not

            clearly erroneous, and  the court  did not err  or abuse  its

            discretion  in   denying  sanctions.    Nor   was  there  any

            procedural irregularity.

                      Affirmed.
                      ________