May 6, 1994           [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]


                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT



                                 ___________________


          No. 93-1899

            


                                 ARNOLD EMMA, ET AL.,

                                Plaintiffs, Appellees,

                                          v.

                            PAUL B. MURPHY, ETC., ET AL.,

                               Defendants, Appellants.


                                  __________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                     [Hon. William G. Young, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                                 ___________________

                                        Before

                                 Breyer, Chief Judge,
                                         ___________
                            Cyr and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
                                           ______________

                                 ___________________

               Nancy Ankers White, Special  Assistant Attorney General, and
               __________________
          Peter J. Morin on brief for appellants.
          ______________



                                  __________________

                                __________________   
           
















                      Per  Curiam.    Defendants  appeal from  a  default
                      ___________

            judgment entered after they failed to file an answer or other

            appearance within the time specified  in the Federal Rules of

            Civil Procedure.  They argue that the district court erred in

            denying  their  motion to  remove  the  default, and  in  the

            subsequent assessment of damages. 

                      In the absence of legal error, we review the denial

            of  a  motion to  remove a  default  solely for  an  abuse of

            discretion.    General  Contracting  & Trading  Co.,  LLC  v.
                           __________________________________________

            Interpole,  Inc.,   899  F.2d  109,  110   (1st  Cir.  1990).
            ________________

            Defendants  offer no  persuasive reason  to suggest  that the

            district court abused its discretion and we perceive no abuse

            in the record. 

                      As to the assessment  of damages, defendants failed

            to timely  file  in  the  district court  any  opposition  to

            plaintiffs' two consecutive  motions for assessment,  despite

            notice of each motion  and an intervening order by  the court

            placing the case on the running trial list "should there be a

            factual  dispute  as to  the damages."   Issues  not properly

            presented  to the trial court  will not be  addressed for the

            first time on appeal.  United States v. Palmer, 956 F.2d 3, 6
                                   _____________    ______

            (1st Cir. 1992).     

                      Affirmed.
                      ________







                                         -2-