
USCA1 Opinion

	




        October 11, 1996        [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 96-1634                                    NEIL GLOVER,                                  Plaintiff, Appellee,                                          v.                                 SGT. DAVID CRAWFORD,                                Defendant, Appellant.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE                   [Hon. Steven J. McAuliffe, U.S. District Judge]                                              ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Torruella, Chief Judge,                                           ___________                           Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges.                                            ______________                                 ____________________            Jeffrey R. Howard, Attorney General,  and Ann F. Larney, Assistant            _________________                         _____________        Attorney General, on brief for appellant.            Paul Bennett and Frank L. Bruno on brief for appellee.            ____________     ______________                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                      Per  Curiam.    Appellant-defendant David  Crawford                      ___________            appeals  from  the district  court's  denial  of his  renewed            motion for judgment as a matter  of law.  We summarily affirm                                                         _________ ______            the denial of the motion for substantially the reasons stated            by the district court in its order dated May 24, 1996.                      Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. R. 27.1.                      ________   ___                                         -2-
