
USCA1 Opinion

	




          November 15, 1995     [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                                 NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                              _________________________          No.  95-1367                              MICHAEL E. FERRIS, ET AL.,                               Plaintiffs, Appellants,                                          v.                   FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION, ET AL.,                                Defendants, Appellees.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS                 [Hon. Morris E. Lasker, Senior U.S. District Judge]                                         __________________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Selya, Circuit Judge,                                       _____________                            Aldrich, Senior Circuit Judge,                                     ____________________                               and Cyr, Circuit Judge.                                        _____________                                 ____________________               Thomas J. Gleason on brief for appellant.               _________________               Harvey M. Forman, Forman & Forman, and Robert O. Berger, III               ________________  _______________      _____________________          on joint brief for appellees.                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                    Per  Curiam.    The  plaintiffs,  disappointed  by  the                    Per  Curiam.                    ___________          district  court's  findings  of   fact  and  conclusions  of  law          following a bench trial, see Ferris v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage                                   ___ ______    __________________________          Corp., No. 94-10470,  slip op.  (D. Mass. Mar.  7, 1995),  appeal          _____          from  the ensuing judgment.   The standard of  review, though not          insurmountable,  is daunting.   See  Cumpiano v.  Banco Santander                                          ___  ________     _______________          P.R., 902 F.2d 148,  152 (1st Cir. 1990) (describing  high degree          ____          of deference that must "be paid to the  trier's assessment of the          evidence"  in a jury-waived trial); Reliance  Steel Prods. Co. v.                                              __________________________          National  Fire Ins.  Co., 880  F.2d 575,  576-77 (1st  Cir. 1989)          ________________________          (similar);  see also Fed. R. Civ.  P. 52(a).  This standard makes                      ___ ____          it  clear that an appellate tribunal "ought not to upset findings          of  fact or conclusions drawn  therefrom unless, on  the whole of          the  record, [the judges] form a strong, unyielding belief that a          mistake has  been made."   Cumpiano, 902 F.2d  at 152.   In other                                     ________          words, as long as the district court's rendition of the record is          plausible, our inquiry is at an end.                    So  it is here.   We have carefully  reviewed the trial          transcript,  the record on appeal,  and the parties'  briefs.  We          discern  no error, and, given the standard of review, we perceive          no fairly debatable issues demanding extended appellate scrutiny.          Accordingly,  we  affirm   the  district  court's   judgment  for          substantially  the reasons  elucidated  in  the  thorough,  well-          reasoned opinion below.                    We  need go no further.   The judgment  of the district          court is summarily affirmed.  See 1st Cir. R. 27.1.                                        ___                                          2          Affirmed.          Affirmed          ________                                          3
