
USCA1 Opinion

	




          November 29, 1993     [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 93-1545                                      JOHN LARNER,                                     Petitioner,                                          v.                          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,                                     Respondent.                                 ____________________                       APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES TAX COURT                        [Hon. L. W. Hamblen, Jr., Chief Judge]                                                  ___________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                 Breyer, Chief Judge,                                         ___________                         Torruella and Selya, Circuit Judges.                                              ______________                                 ____________________            John Larner on brief pro se.            ___________            Michael  L.  Paup,  Acting  Assistant  Attorney  General,  Gary R.            _________________                                          _______        Allen,  Gilbert  S. Rothenberg  and  Janice B.  Geier,  Attorneys, Tax        _____   ______________________       ________________        Division, Department of Justice, on brief for appellee.                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                      Per Curiam.   We have reviewed the  parties' briefs                      __________            and the record  on appeal.  We affirm the judgment of the tax            court essentially  for the  reasons  stated in  the order  of            dismissal for lack of jurisdiction,  dated March 8, 1993.  We            add  only that  our  colleagues in  the Seventh  and Eleventh            Circuits  have   rejected  the  same  argument  proffered  by            appellant and have concluded that "[i]t is  apparent from the            numerous  references to `United  States mail' in  the statute            and regulations that section  7502 is intended to  apply only            to mail delivered by the United States Postal Service and not            also  to  items  delivered by  a  private  delivery service."            Pugsley v.  Commissioner, 749 F.2d 691, 693  (11th Cir. 1985)            _______     ____________            (footnote omitted), quoted in  Petrulis v. Commissioner,  938                                _________  ________    ____________            F.2d 78, 79-80 (7th Cir. 1991).
