November 29, 1993     [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________


        No. 93-1545 

                                     JOHN LARNER,

                                     Petitioner,

                                          v.

                          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

                                     Respondent.


                                 ____________________

                       APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES TAX COURT

                        [Hon. L. W. Hamblen, Jr., Chief Judge]
                                                  ___________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                 Breyer, Chief Judge,
                                         ___________
                         Torruella and Selya, Circuit Judges.
                                              ______________

                                 ____________________

            John Larner on brief pro se.
            ___________
            Michael  L.  Paup,  Acting  Assistant  Attorney  General,  Gary R.
            _________________                                          _______
        Allen,  Gilbert  S. Rothenberg  and  Janice B.  Geier,  Attorneys, Tax
        _____   ______________________       ________________
        Division, Department of Justice, on brief for appellee.


                                 ____________________


                                 ____________________
























                      Per Curiam.   We have reviewed the  parties' briefs
                      __________

            and the record  on appeal.  We affirm the judgment of the tax

            court essentially  for the  reasons  stated in  the order  of

            dismissal for lack of jurisdiction,  dated March 8, 1993.  We

            add  only that  our  colleagues in  the Seventh  and Eleventh

            Circuits  have   rejected  the  same  argument  proffered  by

            appellant and have concluded that "[i]t is  apparent from the

            numerous  references to `United  States mail' in  the statute

            and regulations that section  7502 is intended to  apply only

            to mail delivered by the United States Postal Service and not

            also  to  items  delivered by  a  private  delivery service."

            Pugsley v.  Commissioner, 749 F.2d 691, 693  (11th Cir. 1985)
            _______     ____________

            (footnote omitted), quoted in  Petrulis v. Commissioner,  938
                                _________  ________    ____________

            F.2d 78, 79-80 (7th Cir. 1991).