June 10, 1994           [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________


        No. 93-2152 


                                  EDWARD GALLAGHER,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

              ANTHONY M. FRANK, POSTMASTER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                   [Hon. Nathaniel M. Gorton, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                               Torruella, Cyr and Stahl,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            Edward Gallagher on brief pro se.
            ________________
            Donald K. Stern,  United States  Attorney, and  Cheryl L.  Conner,
            _______________                                 _________________
        Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.


                                 ____________________


                                 ____________________




















                 Per  Curiam.    Following  execution   of  a  settlement
                 ___________

            agreement in this Title  VII suit, plaintiff Edward Gallagher

            sought  to disavow the agreement on the ground that his trial

            attorney had  lacked authorization to settle the  suit on the

            agreed terms.  After  conducting a status conference attended

            by plaintiff  and counsel,  the district court  rejected this

            claim,  finding that  plaintiff's  attorney  "had the  proper

            authority  to  settle  his  case."   Plaintiff  now  seeks to

            challenge this determination.   He voices no complaint as  to

            the format of the conference and,  indeed, it readily appears

            that  he was afforded "a  fair opportunity to  have his say."

            Michaud v. Michaud, 932 F.2d 77, 81 (1st Cir. 1991).  Rather,
            _______    _______

            his cursory argument on appeal appears to be that the court's

            finding was clearly erroneous.

                 We are unable meaningfully to evaluate this claim on the

            basis  of the record presented.  If the status conference was

            recorded, plaintiff was obligated under Fed. R. App. P. 10(b)

            & 11(a) to order  a transcript.  See, e.g.,  Valedon Martinez
                                             ___  ____   ________________

            v. Hospital  Presbiteriano de  la Communidad, Inc.,  806 F.2d
               _______________________________________________

            1128,  1135 (1st Cir. 1986) ("We have held repeatedly that we

            will  not review a claim of error if the appellant has failed

            to include  a transcript of the pertinent  proceedings in the

            record on  appeal.").   Alternatively, if the  conference was

            not recorded,  plaintiff could have prepared  a "statement of

            the evidence" under Fed. R. App. P. 10(c) for approval by the



                                         -2-















            district  court.   See, e.g.,  Barilaro v.  Consolidated Rail
                               ___  ____   ________     _________________

            Corp., 876 F.2d 260, 263-64 (1st Cir. 1989).  In light of his
            _____

            failure  to pursue  either course,  "the consequences  of any

            insufficiency  [in   the  record]   properly   fall  on   the

            appellant."  Id. at 263.   On the basis of the  meager record
                         ___

            before  us, see, e.g., Silva  v. Witschen, ___  F.3d ___, ___
                        ___  ____  _____     ________

            n.9, No. 93-1720 (1st  Cir. 1994) (despite incomplete record,

            appellate court reviews merits as record allows), we perceive

            no basis for disturbing the district court's determination. 

                 Affirmed.
                 _________

































                                         -3-