
USCA1 Opinion

	




        September 29, 1995      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                                         ____________________        No. 95-1269                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                                      Appellee,                                          v.                               RICHARD B. HUDSON, SR.,                                Defendant, Appellant.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE                       [Hon. Gene Carter, U.S. District Judge]                                          ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Torruella, Chief Judge,                                           ___________                           Selya and Lynch, Circuit Judges.                                            ______________                                 ____________________            Richard B. Hudson, Sr. on brief pro se.            ______________________            Jay P.  McCloskey, United  States Attorney,  and F. Mark  Terison,            _________________                                ________________        Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                 Per Curiam.  The  judgment is affirmed substantially for                 __________            the reasons recited by the Magistrate-Judge in his Report and            Recommendation  dated  December  14,   1994.    We  add  that            defendant's  claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, even            if properly before us, would  necessarily fail on the merits.            Contrary  to defendant's  suggestion,  the  record before  us            discloses no significant discrepancies between the debriefing            statements,  on the one hand, and the trial testimony, on the            other, of  the  two witnesses  in question.   And  as we  had            occasion to observe  in our  decision on  direct appeal,  see                                                                      ___            United States v. Hudson, 970 F.2d 948, 950-54 (1st Cir. 1992)            _____________    ______            (passim),  co-defense  counsel  conducted a  diligent  cross-             ______            examination of these and all other witnesses.                  Affirmed.                 _________                                         -3-
