
USCA1 Opinion

	




          February 23, 1996     [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                              _________________________          No. 95-1884                           JOSE L. APONTE-FIGUEROA, ET AL.,                               Plaintiffs, Appellants,                                          v.                            BULK TERMINAL OPERATORS, INC.,                                 Defendant, Appellee.                              _________________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO                      [Hon. Justo Arenas, U.S. Magistrate Judge]                                          _____________________                              _________________________                                        Before                               Selya, Boudin and Lynch,                                   Circuit Judges.                                   ______________                              _________________________               Luis F. Padilla for appellants.               _______________               Ruperto J. Robles for appellee.               _________________                              _________________________                              _________________________                    Per  Curiam.    The  law of  contract  formation  being                    Per  Curiam.                    ___________          settled, the  only question presented  on this appeal  is whether          the  decision of the magistrate judge, entered after a full trial          over  which he  presided,  see 28  U.S.C.    636(c),  is  clearly          erroneous in  one or more respects.   See Fed. R.  Civ. P. 52(a).                                                ___          The clear error hurdle is high:  an appellate court "ought not to          upset findings of fact or conclusions  drawn therefrom unless, on          the  whole record,  we form  a strong,  unyielding belief  that a          mistake  has been made."   Cumpiano v. Banco  Santander P.R., 902                                     ________    _____________________          F.2d 148, 152 (1st Cir. 1990); accord In re Tully,  818 F.2d 106,                                         ______ ___________          109 (1st Cir. 1987).                    Here, the  hurdle is insurmountable.   We have examined          the   record  in  this  case,   read  the  parties'  briefs,  and          entertained oral argument.   As a result of that  careful review,          we  conclude,  without  serious  question, that  no  clear  error          infects  the  magistrate's findings  of fact.   After  all, "when          there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder's          choice between  them cannot  be clearly  erroneous."   Johnson v.                                                                 _______          Watts  Regulator  Co.,  63  F.3d  1129,  1138  (1st  Cir.  1995).          _____________________          Consequently,  we need  go no  further.   We affirm  the judgment          below  for substantially the reasons set  forth in the magistrate          judge's  well-considered opinion.   See  Aponte-Figueroa v.  Bulk                                              ___  _______________     ____          Terminal  Operators,  Inc.,  No.  93-2488 (DRD)  (JA),  slip  op.          __________________________          (D.P.R. July 5, 1995).                    Affirmed.                    Affirmed.                    ________                                          2
