[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                            United States Court of Appeals
                            United States Court of Appeals
                                For the First Circuit
                                For the First Circuit
                                 ____________________

        Nos. 93-1226
             93-1636

                                   DAVID LOFFREDO,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                      NATIONWIDE MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.

                                 ____________________

                    APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

                     [Hon. Ernest C. Torres, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                               Torruella, Circuit Judge,
                                          _____________
                            Rosenn,* Senior Circuit Judge,
                                     ____________________
                              and Stahl, Circuit Judge.
                                         _____________

                                 ____________________

            Stephen  J. Fortunato,  Jr. with  whom Fortunato  & Tarro  was  on
            ___________________________            __________________
        brief for appellant.
            John M.  Boland with whom Boyer,  Reynolds & DeMarco,  Ltd. was on
            _______________           _________________________________
        brief for appellee.
                                 ____________________


                                 ____________________


        ____________________
        *Of the Third Circuit, sitting by designation





















                      Per  Curiam.  We have carefully reviewed the record
                      ____________

            in  this case  and  are  of the  opinion  that the  contested

            district  court findings --  i.e., (1) that  defendant easily

            met  its  burden  of demonstrating  that  plaintiff  had made

            material misrepresentations during the course of  defendant's

            investigation of the fire underlying this litigation; and (2)

            that  defendant easily met  its burden of  demonstrating that

            plaintiff had engaged  in fraudulent conduct relating  to the

            fire -- are amply supported.  Thus, because each such finding

            relieved defendant  of  liability under  the  fire  insurance

            policy issued  by defendant to  plaintiff, the court  did not

            err in entering judgment in  favor of defendant on all counts

            set forth in plaintiff's complaint.

                      Furthermore, we agree with  the district court that

            this case is one  of those very rare instances  where a shift

            in attorneys' fees pursuant to the inherent  authority of the

            district court, see  Jones v. Winnepesaukee Realty,  990 F.2d
                            ___  _____    ____________________

            1, 4  (1st Cir. 1993) ("It  is beyond serious  dispute that a

            federal  court possesses  inherent power to  shift attorneys'

            fees  when parties  conduct litigation  in  bad faith."),  is

            appropriate.1    The  record is  replete  with  evidence that

            plaintiff and several  of his witnesses, both  prior to trial

                                
            ____________________

            1.  Because we find  the court's fee-shifting sanction  to be
            appropriate  in both  substance and  amount  pursuant to  the
            court's inherent  authority, we  need not  and do not  decide
            whether the sanction  also was authorized by Fed.  R. Civ. P.
            11.

                                         -2-
                                          2















            and at the  trial itself, gave untruthful  testimony relating

            to  plaintiff's actions  on the  weekend of  the fire.   This

            testimony alone,  in the context of this  case, is sufficient

            to support  the sanction imposed.   Therefore, the  court did

            not  err in granting defendant's motion for sanctions against

            plaintiff.  

                      Finally,  we agree with  the district court  in its

            characterization  of this  litigation by  plaintiff as  truly

            deplorable.

                      Accordingly,  we  summarily affirm  the  challenged

            orders of the district court.  See First Circuit Rule 27.1.
                                           ___

                      Affirmed.
                      _________





























                                         -3-
                                          3