
USCA1 Opinion

	











          July 22, 1996
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________


        No.  95-2237
        No.  95-2238


                                  RUSSELL J. SMITH,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                 Defendant, Appellee. 


                                 ____________________

                    APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

                    [Hon.  Ronald R. Lagueux, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                           Cyr and Boudin, Circuit Judges. 
                                           ______________

                                 ____________________

            Russell J. Smith on brief pro se. 
            ________________
            Sheldon  Whitehouse,   United  States  Attorney,  and  Kenneth  P.
            ___________________                                    ___________
        Madden, Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee. 
        ______


                                 ____________________


                                 ____________________



                 Per  Curiam.   On the  basis of United  States v. Ursery,
                 ___________                    ______________    ______
















            ___ S. Ct. ___,  1996 WL 340815 (June 24, 1996),  in which the

            Supreme Court rejected a double jeopardy claim similar to the

            one advanced here,  the judgment is summarily  affirmed.   See
                                                           ________   ___

            Loc.  R. 27.1.  













































                                         -2-







