
USCA1 Opinion

	




                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 97-1855                                    UNITED STATES,                                      Appellee,                                          v.                                    DANIEL LEWIS,                                Defendant, Appellant.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND                 [Hon. Francis J. Boyle, Senior U.S. District Judge]                                         __________________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                               Boudin, Stahl and Lynch,                                   Circuit Judges.                                   ______________                                 ____________________            James  L. Sultan, Charles  W. Rankin and Rankin  & Sultan on brief            ________________  __________________     ________________        for appellant.            Sheldon Whitehouse,  United  States Attorney,  Margaret E.  Curran            __________________                             ___________________        and Gerard  B. Sullivan, Assistant  United States Attorneys,  on brief            ___________________        for appellee.                                 ____________________                                   January 26, 1998                                 ____________________                 Per Curiam.    Upon careful  review  of the  briefs  and                 __________            record, we  conclude that  the pat-frisk  of defendant  was a            permissible  search and that  district court correctly denied            suppression of  the evidence discovered  during that  search.            We  reach  this   conclusion  essentially  for   the  reasons            expressed by the  district court in its order dated September            9, 1996.   We  thus reject defendant's appellate  contentions            that the officers  lacked a reasonable suspicion  grounded in            specific and articulable facts to justify the search and that            the  officer conducting the search personally did not possess            such a reasonable suspicion.                 Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.                 ________   ___                                         -2-
