
USCA1 Opinion

	




          March 23, 1994        [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                              _________________________          No. 93-1401                            STATE OF RHODE ISLAND, ET AL.,                                Plaintiffs, Appellees,                                          v.                          NARRAGANSETT INDIAN TRIBE, ET AL.,                               Defendants, Appellants.                              _________________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND                [Hon. Raymond J. Pettine, Senior U.S. District Judge]                                          __________________________                              _________________________                                        Before                                Selya, Circuit Judge,                                       _____________                      Aldrich and Coffin, Senior Circuit Judges.                                          _____________________                              _________________________               Charles A. Hobbs, with whom Arlene Violet, Matthew S. Jaffe,               ________________            _____________  ________________          and Hobbs, Straus, Dean & Wilder were on brief, for appellants.              ____________________________               W. Mark Russo, with whom Jeffrey B.  Pine, Attorney General,               _____________            ________________          Alan  M. Shoer,  Special  Assistant Attorney  General,  Elizabeth          ______________                                          _________          Murdock Myers, Suzanne Worrell, and Adler, Pollock & Sheehan were          _____________  _______________      ________________________          on brief, for state appellees.               Bruce N. Goodsell on brief for municipal appellees.               _________________               Scott  Harshbarger,  Attorney  General (Mass.),  Douglas  H.               __________________                               ___________          Wilkins,  Assistant   Attorney   General  (Mass.),   Michael   J.          _______                                              ____________          Carpenter,  Attorney General  (Me.),  and Frankie  Sue Del  Papa,          _________                                 ______________________          Attorney  General (Nev.)  on brief  for States  of Massachusetts,          Maine, and Nevada, amici curiae.                              _________________________                              _________________________                    Per Curiam.   This opinion ends  a forgotten procedural                    Per Curiam.                    __________          skirmish  in  an enduring  legal  war.   Following  the  district          court's decision and order of judgment, see State of Rhode Island                                                  ___ _____________________          v. Narragansett Tribe of Indians, 816 F. Supp. 796 (D.R.I. 1993),             _____________________________          the  plaintiffs prosecuted an  appeal (docketed in  this court as          No.  93-1400).   The  defendants subsequently  filed this  cross-          appeal, complaining of (1) a stay entered below on March 8, 1993,          and (2) the district court's ensuing denial of appellants' motion          to withdraw or modify the stay.  We consolidated the two appeals.                    In  the  proceedings that  followed,  appellants herein          mentioned  the  stay,  but,  beyond  this  mere  allusion,  never          breathed a whisper of the cross-appeal either in the briefs or at          oral argument.   That ends the  matter:  it is  well settled that          issues advocated in a perfunctory manner on appeal, unaccompanied          by developed  argumentation, are  deemed to  be  abandoned.   See                                                                        ___          United States v.  Slade, 980 F.2d 27, 30 (1st  Cir. 1992); United          _____________     _____                                    ______          States  v. St. Cyr,  977 F.2d 698,  701 (1st Cir.  1992); Ryan v.          ______     _______                                        ____          Royal Ins.  Co., 916 F.2d 731, 734 (1st Cir. 1990); United States          _______________                                     _____________          v. Zannino,  895 F.2d 1,  17 (1st  Cir.), cert. denied,  494 U.S.             _______                                _____ ______          1082 (1990).                    We need not  linger.  Here, we  are faced not  with the          skeleton of an argument,  but with the ghost of one.   And in any          event,  our opinion  in respect  to plaintiffs'  original appeal,          issued this day, likely renders the instant appeal moot.                    For these reasons, we exorcise the phantom cross-appeal          from our midst.          Appeal dismissed.  No costs.          Appeal dismissed.  No costs.          ________________   ________                                          2
