
USCA1 Opinion

	




                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 97-2236                                    UNITED STATES,                                      Appellee,                                          v.                                GEORGE R. JORDAN, JR.,                                Defendant, Appellant.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE                     [Hon. D. Brock Hornby, U.S. District Judge]                                            ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Torruella, Chief Judge,                                           ___________                          Selya and Boudin, Circuit Judges.                                            ______________                                 ____________________            David  Beneman and  Levenson,  Vickerson  & Beneman  on brief  for            ______________      _______________________________        appellant.            Jay P.  McCloskey, United  States Attorney, John  S. Gleason  III,            _________________                           _____________________        Assistant U.S. Attorney, and F. Mark Terison, Assistant U.S. Attorney,                                     _______________        on brief for appellee.                                  ____________________                                  February 10, 1998                                 ____________________                 Per  Curiam.  Upon careful review of the record, briefs,                 ___________            motion  for  summary affirmance,  and objection,  we conclude            that the district court properly  applied the law of the case            and was not required to  reconsider its decision not to group            the  mail fraud and money laundering  counts under U.S.S.G.              3D1.2.   See United States  v. Bell, 988  F.2d 247,  250 (1st                     ___ _____________     ____            Cir. 1993).   In the context  of this appeal,  we perceive no            need for further argument,  and we decline to revisit  United                                                                   ______            States v. Lombardi, 5 F.3d 568, 570-71 (1st Cir. 1993).            ______    ________                 Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.                 ________   ___                                         -2-
