
USCA1 Opinion

	




          February 16, 1995     [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                              _________________________          No. 94-2081                 RHODE ISLAND HIGHER EDUCATION ASSISTANCE AUTHORITY,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.                    RICHARD RILEY, SECRETARY OF EDUCATION, ET AL.,                                Defendants, Appellees.                              _________________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND                    [Hon. Ronald R. Lagueux, U.S. District Judge]                                             ___________________                              _________________________                                        Before                          Selya and Boudin, Circuit Judges,                                            ______________                             and Carter,* District Judge.                                          ______________                              _________________________               Joseph R. Palumbo, Jr. for appellant.               ______________________               Neil  H.  Koslowe,  Special  Litigation  Counsel,  Dep't  of               _________________          Justice, with  whom Frank W. Hunger,  Assistant Attorney General,                              _______________          Sheldon Whitehouse, United  States Attorney, and William  Kanter,          __________________                               _______________          Deputy Director, were on brief, for appellees.                              _________________________                              _________________________          __________________          *Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the District          of Maine, sitting by designation.                                                               Per Curiam.   This appeal seeks  to test the  appropri-                    Per Curiam.                    __________          ateness of an order of the Secretary of Education implementing 20          U.S.C.    1072(e) (repealed).  Specifically,  the contested order          involves  the Secretary's  denial  of appellant's  request for  a          waiver that would have  shielded it from the consequences  of its          noncompliance with a particular requirement of the statute.                    We have read the briefs, perused the voluminous record,          entertained  oral argument, and studied the applicable law.  When          all is said and done, we are convinced that, at bottom, this case          turns  on  deference  to  the Secretary's  exercise  of  informed          discretion, and that the Secretary's insistence on the forthright          implementation of  the statute's "cap" on  maximum allowable cash          reserves,  as exemplified  by  his denial  of appellant's  waiver          request, is not "arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to          the  statute."   See  Chevron U.S.A.  Inc.  v. Natural  Resources                           ___  ____________________     __________________          Defense Council, Inc.,  467 U.S. 837, 844 (1984).   Since no more          _____________________          is exigible, the Secretary's ruling must stand.  Put another way,          the "inescapable conclusion" that appellant's counsel entreats us          to draw eludes us (as it did the Secretary and the court below).                    To go further would  serve no useful purpose.   We have          already written  at length about  this very situation,  see Rhode                                                                  ___ _____          Island  Higher Educ. Assistance Auth.  v. Secretary of Educ., 929          _____________________________________     __________________          F.2d 844 (1st Cir. 1991)  (vacating earlier district court  order          and  remanding for  further proceedings);  the Secretary  and the          district   court   each   dealt   creditably   with   appellant's          asseverations   in  their  respective   decisions  following  our                                          2          original remand; and the appeal, in its present posture, presents          no fairly debatable issue  of either fact or law.   Consequently,          we  affirm  the  judgment  below for  substantially  the  reasons          elucidated in the district court's well-considered rescript.  See                                                                        ___          Rhode Island  Higher  Educ. Assistance  Auth. v.  Riley, No.  92-          _____________________________________________     _____          0623L, slip op. at 5-8 (D.R.I. Aug. 19, 1994).          Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. R. 27.1.          Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. R. 27.1.          ________   ___                                          3
