
USCA1 Opinion

	




        October 6, 1994         [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 94-1665                                MICHAEL ALAN CROOKER,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                                 Defendant, Appellee.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS                   [Hon. Douglas P. Woodlock, U.S. District Judge]                                              ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Cyr, Boudin and Stahl,                                   Circuit Judges.                                   ______________                                 ____________________            Michael Alan Crooker on brief pro se.            ____________________            Donald K. Stern,  United States  Attorney, and  Karen L.  Goodwin,            _______________                                 _________________        Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                 Per Curiam.   We have reviewed  the parties' briefs  and                 __________            the record  on appeal.  We agree with the district court that            the  appellant has  not suffered  a "distinct  and palpable,"            Conservation  Law Found. v. Reilly, 950 F.2d 38, 40 (1st Cir.            ________________________    ______            1991), "real and immediate," American Postal Workers Union v.                                         _____________________________            Frank, 968 F.2d 1373, 1375 (1st Cir. 1992), injury sufficient            _____            to  confer standing and that  federal, not state, law governs            the  authority  of deputy  United  States  Marshals to  carry            weapons.   Either of  these conclusions, by  itself, warrants            affirming the district court order of dismissal.                 Affirmed.                 _________                                         -2-
