
USCA1 Opinion

	




                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                           UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                              _________________________          No. 96-1457                               EVELYN COTTO, ET AL.,                                Plaintiffs, Appellees,                                         v.                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                                Defendant, Appellee,                              _________________________                                 Peter John Porrata,                                     Appellant.                              _________________________                    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO                [Hon. Jaime Pieras, Jr., Senior U.S. District Judge]                              _________________________                                       Before                                Selya, Circuit Judge,                             Cyr, Senior Circuit Judge,                            and Keeton*, District Judge.                              _________________________               Manuel Suarez,  with whom Jose R.  Franco was on brief,  for          appellant.               Miguel A. Fernandez, Assistant United States Attorney,  with          whom               Guillerm                      o Gil, United States Attorney, and Fidel A. Sevillano          Del Rio, Assistant United States Attorney, were on brief, for the          United States.                              _________________________                                    June 10, 1997                              _________________________          _________________          *Of the District of Massachusetts, sitting by designation.                    Per Curiam.  Because the putative appellant, Peter John          Porrata, is not   and has never been   a  party to the underlying          civil action,  he does not have  standing to appeal the  district          court's denial of the plaintiffs' second Rule 60(b) motion.   See          Karcher v. May, 484 U.S.  72, 77 (1987); Diamond v. Charles,  476          U.S. 54, 63-64 (1986); United States v. AVX Corp., 962 F.2d  108,          113-14 (1st Cir. 1992); Dopp v. HTP Corp., 947 F.2d 506, 512 (1st          Cir. 1991).  The appeal is therefore dismissed.                    Appeal dismissed.                                            2
