[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            United States Court of Appeals

                                For the First Circuit

                                 ____________________



          No. 96-2089



                                   PAULA KILCOYNE,



                                Plaintiff - Appellant,



                                          v.



                               BENTLEY COLLEGE, ET AL.,



                               Defendants - Appellees.



                                 ____________________



                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS



                      [Hon. Patti B. Saris, U.S. District Judge]
                                            ___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                               Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                          ___________



                        Bownes and Cyr, Senior Circuit Judges.
                                        _____________________



                                _____________________



               J. Daniel Lindley for appellant.
               _________________

               David C. Henderson, with  whom Sharon R. Burger and  Nutter,
               __________________             ________________      _______

          McClennen & Fish, LLP were on brief for appellees.
          _____________________







                                 ____________________



                                     May 22, 1997

                                 ____________________











































                    Per  Curiam.   Upon full  consideration of  the record,
                    Per  Curiam.
                    ___________



          briefs and argument  of counsel,  we affirm the  decision of  the



          district  court on the basis  of its Memorandum  and Order, dated



          August 2, 1996, on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.



                    Affirmed.    Double  costs  are  granted  to appellees,
                    ________



          chargeable  against appellant's counsel.  See Fed. R. App. P. 38;
                                                    ___



          28  U.S.C.    1927 ("Any  attorney .  . .  who so  multiplies the



          proceedings  in  any case  unreasonably  and  vexatiously may  be



          required by  the court  to satisfy  personally the  excess costs,



          expenses, and attorneys' fees reasonably incurred because of such



          conduct.").

































































                                         -2-