
USCA1 Opinion

	




                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 96-1879                                HECTOR PAGES, ET AL.,                                Plaintiffs, Appellees,                                          v.                                   MANUEL FEINGOLD,                                Defendant, Appellant.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO                    [Hon. Jose Antonio Fuste, U.S. District Judge]                                              ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Torruella, Chief Judge,                                           ___________                           Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges.                                            ______________                                 ____________________            Harry Hertzberg on brief for appellant.            _______________            Jesus E. Cuza, Ina M. Berlingeri-Vincenty and Goldman Antonetti &            _____________  __________________________     ___________________        Cordova on brief for appellees.        _______                                 ____________________                                     May 6, 1997                                 ____________________                 Per  Curiam.   Upon  careful  review of  the  briefs and                 ___________            record,  we conclude  that  this appeal  clearly presents  no            substantial   question  and   that  summary   disposition  is            appropriate.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.                            ___                 We further conclude that, for  the reasons stated in the            May  8, 1996,  order,  the district  court  acted within  its            discretion   in     entering   default   against   defendant.            Defendant's repeated failures  to comply  with discovery  and            other orders justified that  sanction, of which defendant had            been warned.  See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C).                          _____                 Further, for the reasons stated in the opinion and order            dated  June  7, 1996,  Pages v.  Feingold,  928 F.  Supp. 148                                   _____     ________            (D.P.R. 1996),  the district court properly  entered judgment            for  plaintiff.    The  district court's  findings  that  the            letters  written  by  defendant  were false  and  maliciously            published, that plaintiff suffered damages thereby,  and that            plaintiff was a private figure,  were amply supported by  the            evidence  presented at  trial and consistent  with applicable            Puerto Rico law as cited by the district court.  And, we find            no  factual or  legal basis  for  defendant's assertion  of a            qualified  immunity defense,  particularly  in  light of  the            default.                 The  district  court did  not  abuse  its discretion  in            denying defendant's  motion to  recuse.  The  various remarks            about which  defendant complains  do not create  a reasonable                                         -2-            doubt  concerning  the district  judge's  impartiality.   See                                                                      ___            United States v. Lopez, 944 F.2d 33, 37 (1st Cir. 1991).            _____________    _____                 Plaintiff's  motion  to  dismiss  this  appeal  and  for            sanctions  is  granted in  part.   In  light of  the numerous                           ________________            violations  of the  appellate  rules regarding  the form  and            content of the brief  and appendix, we are persuaded  that an            award of sanctions is appropriate.  See Fed. R. App.  P. 28 &                                                ___            30;  Reyes-Garcia v. Rodriguez & Del Valle, Inc., 82 F.3d 11,                 ____________    ___________________________            14-16 (1st Cir. 1996).   Therefore, we award double  costs to                                                   ___________________            plaintiff,  to   be  taxed  jointly   and  severally  against            defendant and his attorney.  See Fed. R. App. P. 38.                                         ___                 Affirmed.                 ________                                         -3-
