
USCA1 Opinion

	




                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 97-1009                                 SMITH-BARNEY, INC.,                                 Plaintiff, Appellee,                                          v.                                    URSULA EKINCI,                                 Defendant, Appellee.                                      __________                              STANLEY A. TEITLER, P.C.,                                Defendant, Appellant.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE                     [Hon. D. Brock Hornby, U.S. District Judge]                                            ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                 Selya, Circuit Judge,                                        _____________                            Bownes, Senior Circuit Judge,                                    ____________________                              and Boudin, Circuit Judge.                                          _____________                                 ____________________            Stanley A.  Teitler, Stanley A.  Teitler, P.C. and Scott Goldstein            ___________________  _________________________     _______________        on brief for appellant Stanley A. Teitler, P.C.            Andrew  M. Horton and Verrill  & Dana on brief  for appellee Smith            _________________     _______________        Barney, Inc.            Douglas F. Jennings on brief for appellee Ursula Ekinci.            ___________________                                 ____________________                                    JUNE 18, 1997                                 ____________________                 Per Curiam.  Upon  careful consideration of the parties'                 __________            briefs  and the record, we find appellant's contentions to be            without  merit.     The  district   court's  order  correctly            explained the validity and  priority of the competing claims.            Smith Barney, Inc. v. Ekinci, 937 F.Supp. 59 (D. Me. 1996).            __________________    ______                 Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.                 ________   ___                                         -2-
