Court Opinion

ID: 2965130
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:35:50.774195+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:02:04.308770
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 97-2236

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                GEORGE R. JORDAN, JR.,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

                     [Hon. D. Brock Hornby, U.S. District Judge]
                                            ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

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

                                 ____________________

            David  Beneman and  Levenson,  Vickerson  & Beneman  on brief  for
            ______________      _______________________________
        appellant.
            Jay P.  McCloskey, United  States Attorney, John  S. Gleason  III,
            _________________                           _____________________
        Assistant U.S. Attorney, and F. Mark Terison, Assistant U.S. Attorney,
                                     _______________
        on brief for appellee. 

                                 ____________________

                                  February 10, 1998
                                 ____________________

                 Per  Curiam.  Upon careful review of the record, briefs,
                 ___________

            motion  for  summary affirmance,  and objection,  we conclude

            that the district court properly  applied the law of the case

            and was not required to  reconsider its decision not to group

            the  mail fraud and money laundering  counts under U.S.S.G.  

            3D1.2.   See United States  v. Bell, 988  F.2d 247,  250 (1st
                     ___ _____________     ____

            Cir. 1993).   In the context  of this appeal,  we perceive no

            need for further argument,  and we decline to revisit  United
                                                                   ______

            States v. Lombardi, 5 F.3d 568, 570-71 (1st Cir. 1993).
            ______    ________

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

                                         -2-