
USCA1 Opinion

	




          February 9, 1995                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 94-2064                                     UNITED STATES,                                      Appellee,                                          v.                                 AMBROSE L. DEVANEY,                                Defendant, Appellant.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS                     [Hon. William G. Young, U.S. District Judge]                                             ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                 Selya, Circuit Judge,                                        _____________                          Bownes, Senior Circuit Judge, and                                  ____________________                                Stahl, Circuit Judge.                                       _____________                                 ____________________            Ambrose L. Devaney on brief pro se.            __________________            Donald  K. Stern,  United  States Attorney,  and  Victor  A. Wild,            ________________                                  _______________        Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                 Per Curiam.  During the pendency of the direct appeal of                 __________            his conviction  and sentence  for conspiracy, bank  fraud and            money laundering, Ambrose  Devaney filed pro se  a motion for                                                     ___ __            discovery and  a motion  to  compel service  in the  district            court.   Although  "[a]s  a general  rule  with only  limited            exceptions, entry of a notice of appeal divests  the district            court of  jurisdiction to  adjudicate any matters  related to            the  appeal," United States v. Distasio, 820 F.2d 20, 23 (1st                          _____________    ________            Cir.  1987) (citing  cases), the  district court  denied both            motions.    In these  circumstances, and  because we  find no            substantial  question  presented by  the  pro  se appeal,  we                                                      ___  __            consider the appeal and dismiss it on its merits.  See United                                                               ___ ______            States  v. Buckley,  847 F.2d  991, 993  n.1 (1st  Cir. 1988)            ______     _______            (allowing  motion  to consolidate  a  motion  to vacate,  set            aside, or correct sentence with pending direct appeal), cert.                                                                    ____            denied, 488  U.S. 1015  (1989); United  States v. Connell,  6            ______                          ______________    _______            F.3d 27,  29 (1st Cir. 1993)  (despite jurisdictional doubts,            appellate court  entitled to  affirm dismissal on  the ground            that no substantial question is presented on the merits).                 We have reviewed  carefully the record in this  case and            the briefs of the parties.  We find no abuse of discretion in            the district court's  denial of  Devaney's discovery  motion.            See  Buckley, 847  F.2d  at 1003  (post  judgment motion  for            ___  _______            discovery within discretion of district court).                 Nor  do we  find  any error  in  the court's  denial  of            Devaney's motion to compel  the government to serve him  as a            pro se  litigant.  Since  Devaney was represented  by counsel            ___ __            before the  district court, his motion to  compel service was            an implicit request to  proceed via "hybrid"  representation.            McKaskle  v. Wiggins,  465  U.S. 168,  183  (1984).   Such  a            ________     _______            request lies in  the discretion of the district court, United                                                                   ______            States v.  Betancourt-Arretuche, 933 F.2d 89,  94 (1st Cir.),            ______     ____________________            cert.  denied, 502 U.S.  959 (1991), and we  find no abuse of            ____   ______            discretion in this case.                 The  denial of  Devaney's  pro se  motions is  affirmed.                                            ___ __              ________            Devaney's motion  filed in  this court  to compel  service is            denied.  Devaney's motion to file a supplemental statement of            ______            issues is denied.                      ______                                         -3-
