February 11, 1994
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________


        No. 93-1772 

                                TOMAS MARTINEZ-BURGOS,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                       SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.


                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO


                   [Hon. Gilberto Gierbolini, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                             Torruella, Boudin and Stahl,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            Juan A. Hernandez Rivera  and Raymond Rivera Esteves on brief  for
            ________________________      ______________________
        appellant.
            Guillermo  Gil,  United  States Attorney,  Maria  Hortensia  Rios,
            ______________                             ______________________
        Assistant  United States  Attorney,  and  Paul  Germanotta,  Assistant
                                                  ________________
        Regional Counsel, Department  of Health and  Human Services, on  brief
        for appellee.


                                 ____________________


                                 ____________________


















                      Per  Curiam.    We  affirm  substantially  for  the
                      ___________

            reasons stated in the opinions of the magistrate and district

            court.   We  disagree  with   claimant's  argument  that  the

            testimony of a VE was necessary to determine whether a person

            with   the  "moderate"   limitations  the  ALJ   found  could

            adequately perform the  job of bank office clerk and cashier.

            The descriptions of  claimant's past work, together  with the

            medical reports  and MA's  testimony addressed  to claimant's

            level  of  intellectual and  social functioning,  provided an

            adequate basis  from which  to conclude  that claimant  could

            perform those jobs at an acceptable level.

                      Affirmed.
                      ________