
USCA1 Opinion

	




          June 29, 1995                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATE COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 94-2143                                   KEVIN G. TAYLOR,                                Petitioner, Appellant,                                          v.                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                                Respondent, Appellee.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                        FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS                    [Hon. Walter Jay Skinner, U.S. District Judge]                                              ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Cyr, Boudin and Stahl,                                   Circuit Judges.                                   ______________                                 ____________________            Kevin G. Taylor on brief pro se.            _______________            Donald K.  Stern, United States  Attorney, and  Kimberly S.  Budd,            ________________                                _________________        Assistant U.S. Attorney, on brief for appellee.                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                 Per Curiam.  This is an appeal of a district court order                 __________            denying the  motion of petitioner  Kevin Taylor to  set aside            his conviction  and sentence.    See 28  U.S.C.    2255.   We                                             ___            affirm  the district  court's  order  substantially  for  the            reasons given by Judge Skinner, adding a brief comment.  Like            the district court, we  can find no indication that  the lack            of  counsel at  arraignment affected  petitioner's subsequent            trial.   No  presumption exists  that lack  of counsel  at an            arraignment   prejudices   all  subsequent   stages   of  the            proceeding where, as here,  the only significant happening at            the arraignment  was the entry  of a not  guilty plea.   And,            without some  infection of the subsequent  proceedings, there            is no warrant for relief under   2255.                 Affirmed.                   ________
