UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 93-1150

                          ANGEL L. ALVAREZ-SANCHEZ, ET AL.,

                               Plaintiffs, Appellants,

                                          v.

                      JOSE E. APONTE DE LA TORRE, ETC., ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                 ____________________


                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO


                    [Hon. Jose Antonio Fuste, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                 ____________________


                                        Before

                                 Selya, Circuit Judge,
                                        _____________

                      Aldrich and Coffin, Senior Circuit Judges.
                                          _____________________

                                 ____________________


            Armando Cardona-Estelritz  with  whom Isidro  Garcia Pesquera  Law
            _________________________             ____________________________
        Offices was on brief for appellants.
        _______
            Jacqueline  D. Novas-Debien  with whom  Carlos Lugo  Fiol,  Acting
            ___________________________             _________________
        Solicitor General,  Reina Colon De Rodriguez,  Acting Deputy Solicitor
                            ________________________
        General, Pedro Juan Perez Nieves  and Saldana, Rey & Alvarado  were on
                 _______________________      _______________________
        brief for appellees.

                                 ____________________

                                  September 29, 1993
                                 ____________________

















                      ALDRICH,  Senior  Circuit Judge.    This  42 U.S.C.
                                _____________________

              1983 action  was  commenced  on  June  27,  1991,  and  was

            dismissed as out of time.  We affirm.

                      Defendant,   mayor   of   Carolina,  Puerto   Rico,

            determined  that a  large number  of municipal  employees had

            been hired  as career employees  by procedures  that did  not

            comply  with the Puerto Rico  Personnel statute.   On May 23,

            1989  he wrote  each  one a  basically  form letter  to  that

            effect, but  stating that recipient employee  could request a

            hearing in 15 days to seek to show error  in the records.  If

            a  hearing  was   not  requested,  or  if  the   hearing  was

            unsuccessful, the employee would  be discharged, but would be

            given  provisional employment  during which  he or  she could

            appeal,  or apply  for new  employment.   The present  twelve

            plaintiffs   obtained   hearings,   but  were   unsuccessful.

            Thereafter, during the summer of 1989, each received a letter

            from  defendant mayor notifying him  or her of  that fact and

            stating that severance "shall be effective" one week from the

            date of the letter.  They were told they could  apply for new

            employment,  but  none did.    Plaintiffs  were continued  as

            provisionals  until July  23, 1990,  at which  time all  were

            totally  terminated.   They  sue  for  their loss  of  career

            employment.

                      On  defendants'  motion  for summary  judgment  the

            court  held that  the May  23, 1989  letters  were sufficient



                                         -2-















            notification of discharge  to start the  one year statute  of

            limitations, rejecting  plaintiffs' claim of July,  1990.  We

            concur  in   the  judgment,   but  do  so   without  reaching

            plaintiffs'  contention that  the May letters  were ambiguous

            and  not to  be read  as definite.   Even  were that  so, the

            letters  sent in the summer of  1989 were unmistakably clear,

            and were nearly two years before suit.

                      Plaintiffs' sole  answer is that the  court did not

            rely  on   the  1989  summer  letters.    This  neglects  the

            elementary principle that if  a court's result is  correct it

            must  be affirmed even though the court gave a wrong reason.1

            Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 459 (1953).  Persisting in this
            _____    _____

            error, plaintiffs refused to  include the summer letters, and

            the  pretrial order  that  admitted their  receipt, in  their

            appendix,  even though  the  court ordered  them  to do  so.2

            Instead,  in their  brief, plaintiffs  brazenly refer  to the

            July  23, 1990 letters as "a second series of letters" rather

            than as the third.




                                
            ____________________

            1.  We doubt that the court erred as  to the very lengthy May
            letters, but need not pursue analysis.

            2.  Defendants, as well as having to supplement the appendix,
            have  had  to bring  four  motions.   Plaintiffs  continually
            failed  to  file  their  brief, and  failed  to  make  proper
            service,  or  to  comply  with  an  order  to  explain  their
            insufficient  appendix.     The  court  referred  defendants'
            request  for sanctions to  the sitting panel,  and so advised
            plaintiffs.

                                         -3-















                      This appeal is worse than  frivolous, and counsel's

            conduct calls for sanctions against him  personally, pursuant

            to Fed. R. App. P. 38,  as damages and for vexatious conduct,

            in the amount of $2,500, payable to defendants, and not to be

            waived.

                      Affirmed, with double costs.
                      ___________________________









































                                         -4-