
USCA1 Opinion

	




                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 97-1427                                    UNITED STATES,                                      Appellee,                                          v.                                   MICHAEL MERRIC,                                Defendant, Appellant.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE                     [Hon. Morton A. Brody, U.S. District Judge]                                            ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Torruella, Chief Judge,                                           ___________                          Boudin and Stahl, Circuit Judges.                                            ______________                                 ____________________            Michael Merric on brief pro se.            ______________            Jay  P.  McCloskey,  United  States   Attorney,  and  Margaret  D.            __________________                                    ____________        McGaughey, Assistant United States Attorney,  on Memorandum of Law  in        _________        Support of Motion Pursuant to Loc. R. 27.1 for Summary Disposition for        appellee.                                 ____________________                                   AUGUST 19, 1997                                 ____________________                 Per  Curiam.   Assuming without  deciding  that we  have                 ___________            jurisdiction  to  hear  this  appeal,  and  having  carefully            reviewed the briefs and record, we find no clear error in the            order of commitment pursuant to 18 U.S.C.   4241(d).                   We  will   not   second-guess   the   district   court's            determination of  the credibility of the psychiatric reports,            even  supposing  that  issue of  credibility  was  not waived            before the district  court.  Further, in the  context of this            interlocutory  appeal from the   4241(d) commitment order, we            have  no  call  to review  defendant's  complaints  about his            medication and the underlying criminal charges.                 The order is affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.                              ________   ___                 Appellant's  motion for stay pending appeal is denied as                                                                ______            moot.                                         -2-
