
USCA1 Opinion

	




                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 97-1471                                    UNITED STATES,                                      Appellee,                                          v.                                 WILLIAM H. NORTHUP,                                Defendant, Appellant.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND                     [Hon. Ernest C. Torres, U.S. District Judge]                                             ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Torruella, Chief Judge,                                           ___________                           Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges.                                            ______________                                 ____________________            Randy Olen and John M. Cicilline on brief for appellant.            __________     _________________            Sheldon Whitehouse, United States Attorney, and Stephanie S.            __________________                              ____________        Browne, Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.        ______                                 ____________________                                   November 5, 1997                                 ____________________                 Per Curiam.    Upon careful  review  of the  briefs  and                 __________            record, we reject defendant's contention that the evidence of            possession  and  intent  to  distribute  was insufficient  to            support his conviction  under 21 U.S.C.   841(a)(1).   To the            contrary,  the testimony  of  the  police  officers  and  the            special  narcotics   officer,  along   with  the   inferences            reasonably  to be drawn therefrom, amply supported the jury's            verdict.                 Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.                 ________   ___                                         -2-
