
USCA1 Opinion

	




          April 22, 1996        [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________          No. 95-1866                           AGAPITA ROSA VELAZQUEZ, ET AL.,                               Plaintiffs - Appellees,                                          v.                         EDNA J. FIGUEROA-GOMEZ, ANGEL ROSA,                   JAIME TORRENS AND THE MUNICIPALITY OF LUQUILLO,                               Defendants - Appellants.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO                   [Hon. Gilberto Gierbolini, U.S. District Judge]                                              ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                               Torruella, Chief Judge,                                          ___________                            Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge,                                    ____________________                               and Cyr, Circuit Judge.                                        _____________                                _____________________               Claudio  Aliff-Ortiz,  with  whom  Eliezer  Aldarondo-Ortiz,               ____________________               ________________________          Isabel  L pez-Bras and Aldarondo &  Lopez Bras were  on brief for          __________________     _______________________          appellants.               Juan B. Soto-Balbas, with whom Adrian Mercado and  Mercado &               ___________________            ______________      _________          Soto were on brief for appellees.          ____                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                    Per  Curiam.    This  appeal  stems  from  a  political                    Per  Curiam.                    ___________          discrimination  case brought, pursuant  to 42  U.S.C.    1983, by          Plaintiffs-Appellees,  Agapita  Rosa  Vel zquez, et  al.,  former          employees of  the Municipal Government of  Luquillo, Puerto Rico,          against  Defendants-Appellants, Edna  J. Figueroa-G mez,  et al.,          the  Municipal   Government  of  Luquillo  and   several  of  its          officials.    A  jury verdict  found  that  Defendants-Appellants          discriminated  against  thirty-eight of  the former  employees in          violation  of  the  First  Amendment  based  on  their  political          affiliation and awarded damages in favor of twenty-seven of them.          In an  earlier  episode, we  affirmed  the finding  of  political          discrimination and the damage award.  See Agapita Rosa Vel zquez,                                                ___ _______________________          et al.  v. Figueroa-G mez et  al., 996 F.2d  425 (1st  Cir. 1993)          _____      ______________________          (affirming  also  the  district   court's  denial  of  employees'          reinstatement).                      Defendants-Appellants now appeal  the district  court's          June 6, 1995, order denying their  motion for a reduction in  the          attorney's   fees   awarded   to  Plaintiffs-Appellees   as   the          "prevailing party" under 42 U.S.C.   1988 as well as  its June 9,          1995, order of execution.   Upon careful review of the record, we          affirm, on the basis of the district court's opinion, each matter          raised on appeal.   The district court applied the  correct legal          standards and did not abuse its discretion in denying the request          that the attorney's  fees be  further reduced.   Because we  find          this to be  a frivolous appeal,  see E.H. Ashley  & Co. v.  Wells                                           ___ __________________     _____          Fargo Alarm Servs., 907 F.2d 1274, 1280 (lst Cir. l990) ("[I]t is          __________________          enough that  the appellants and  their attorney should  have been          aware that the appeal  had no chance of success.");  Natasha Inc.                                                               ____________                                         -2-          v. Evita Marine Charters, Inc., 763 F.2d 468, 472 (1st Cir. 1985)             ___________________________          ("'An  appeal is  frivolous when  the result  is obvious,  or the          arguments are "wholly without merit."'" (quoting NLRB v. Catalina                                                           ____    ________          Yachts,  679 F.2d 180, 182  (9th Cir. 1982) (citations omitted)),          ______          Defendants-Appellants are directed to show cause, within ten days          from the issuance of this opinion, why we should not award double          costs  and attorney's fees in the amount of $3,500 to Plaintiffs-          Appellees pursuant to Rule  38 of the Federal Rules  of Appellate          Procedure.  See  28 U.S.C.    1912 (1994)  (authorizing award  of                      ___          "just  damages  for [prevailing  party's]  delay,  and single  or          double  costs"); Fed. R. App.  P. 38 (authorizing  award of "just          damages  and single or double costs" if appeal is "frivolous" and          "after a separately  filed motion  or notice from  the court  and          reasonable opportunity  to respond");  see also Roadway  Express,                                                 ________ _________________          Inc. v.  Piper, 447 U.S.  752, 764-67 (1980);  Cronin v. Town  of          ____     _____                                 ______    ________          Amesbury, --- F.3d ---, ---, No.  95-1957, slip. op. at 7-10 (1st          ________          Cir. April 16, 1996).                    The judgment below is affirmed.                                          affirmed                                          ________                                         -3-
