
USCA1 Opinion

	




          July 1, 1993                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 93-1120                                 CHARLES MERRILL MOUNT,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                                 Defendant, Appellee.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS                       [Hon. Rya W. Zobel, U.S. District Judge]                                           ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                 Breyer, Chief Judge,                                         ___________                           Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges.                                            ______________                                 ____________________            Charles Merrill Mount on brief pro so.            _____________________            A. John Pappalardo, United States  Attorney, and Tobin  N. Harvey,            __________________                               ________________        Assistant  United States Attorney, on  Memorandum in Support of Motion        for Summary Disposition for appellee.                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                      Per Curiam.  In  this most recent challenge to  his                      __________            1988  conviction  for  interstate  transportation  of  stolen            property (one of a  series of such challenges he  has brought            pursuant to  28 U.S.C.    2255), petitioner alleges  that the            evidence was insufficient  to support the  jury's finding  of            guilt.   In particular, he contends that the testimony of two            government witnesses  was  unworthy  of  credence.    In  our            decision  on direct  appeal, we  discussed such  testimony at            some  length and found that the jury was justified in relying            thereon.   See United States  v. Mount, 896  F.2d 612, 616-20                       ___ _____________     _____            (1st Cir. 1990).   The arguments now advanced  by petitioner,            even  if  not  procedurally  barred,  provide  no  basis  for            revisiting this issue.                      Affirmed.                           _________
