
USCA1 Opinion

	




          July 22, 1996                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 95-2237        No. 95-2238                                  RUSSELL J. SMITH,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                                 Defendant, Appellee.                                 ____________________                    APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND                    [Hon. Ronald R. Lagueux, U.S. District Judge]                                             ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Torruella, Chief Judge,                                           ___________                           Cyr and Boudin, Circuit Judges.                                           ______________                                 ____________________            Russell J. Smith on brief pro se.            ________________            Sheldon  Whitehouse,   United  States  Attorney,  and  Kenneth  P.            ___________________                                    ___________        Madden, Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.        ______                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                 Per  Curiam.  On the  basis of United  States v. Ursery,                 ___________                    ______________    ______            ___ S. Ct. ___, 1996 WL 340815 (June 24, 1996),  in which the            Supreme Court rejected a double jeopardy claim similar to the            one advanced here,  the judgment is summarily  affirmed.  See                                                           ________   ___            Loc. R. 27.1.                                          -2-
