
USCA1 Opinion

	




          May 12, 1994          [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                              _________________________          No. 93-2186                  IN RE ULPIANO UNANUE-CASAL, a/k/a CHARLES UNANUE,                                       Debtor.                              _________________________                              JOSEPH A. UNANUE, ET AL.,                               Petitioners, Appellees,                                          v.                              ULPIANO UNANUE-CASAL a/k/a                                   CHARLES UNANUE,                                Respondent, Appellant.                              _________________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO                   [Hon. Gilberto Gierbolini, U.S. District Judge]                                              ___________________                              _________________________                                        Before                                Selya, Circuit Judge,                                       _____________                      Coffin and Bownes, Senior Circuit Judges.                                         _____________________                              _________________________               Jan Alan  Brody, with whom Carella,  Byrne, Bain, Gilfillan,               _______________            _________________________________          Cecchi, Stewart & Olstein,  William Vidal-Carvajal, and Hernandez          _________________________   ______________________      _________          & Vidal were on brief, for appellant.          _______               Arturo J. Garcia-Sola,  with whom Jose R.  Gonzalez-Irizarry               _____________________             __________________________          and  McConnell Valdes  were  on brief,  for  appellees Joseph  A.               ________________          Unanue, Frank Unanue, and Goya Foods, Inc.                Michael  R. Griffinger,  with whom  Crummy, Del  Deo, Dolan,               ______________________              ________________________          Griffinger & Vecchione and Guillermo A. Nigaglioni were on brief,          ______________________     _______________________          for remaining appellees.                    Per  Curiam.  This is  the latest chapter  in a dispute                    Per  Curiam.                    ___________          that  has been  litigated  with fierce  tenacity  by the  debtor,          Ulpiano Unanue-Casal,  a/k/a Charles Unanue.   See,  e.g., In  re                                                         ___   ____  ______          Unanue-Casal,  998  F.2d  28  (1st Cir.  1993);  Unanue-Casal  v.          ____________                                     ____________          Unanue-Casal, 898 F.2d 839 (1st Cir. 1990).  Although tenacity is          ____________          to be admired, it is sometimes misplaced.  So it is here.                    We have  carefully reviewed  the voluminous record  and          the  parties' briefs, and have duly considered the matters raised          at oral argument.  In the end, we are persuaded that the district          court  did not err in reversing the bankruptcy court's refusal to          lift the automatic stay,  11 U.S.C.   362.  The  district court's          well-conceived opinion, see In re Unanue Casal, Civ.  No. 92-1796                                  ___ __________________          GG (D.P.R. Aug. 3, 1993) (unpublished), adequately elucidates the          reasoning that is controlling on  the central issue presented  by          this  appeal, and no useful purpose would be served by rehearsing          that  reasoning.  Similarly, we see no  basis for a remand to the          bankruptcy court  for further  exploration of this  issue.   And,          finally, appellant's other arguments are mere makeweights.                    We need go no further.  Because this appeal presents no          substantial  question of  law or  fact, we  summarily affirm  the          judgment below.1                    Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.                    Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.                    ________   ___                                        ____________________               1We  take no  view of  appellees' claim  that the  appeal is          moot, as the appeal is impuissant in any event.                                          2
