May 12, 1994          [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                              _________________________

          No. 93-2186

                  IN RE ULPIANO UNANUE-CASAL, a/k/a CHARLES UNANUE,

                                       Debtor.

                              _________________________

                              JOSEPH A. UNANUE, ET AL.,

                               Petitioners, Appellees,

                                          v.

                              ULPIANO UNANUE-CASAL a/k/a
                                   CHARLES UNANUE,

                                Respondent, Appellant.

                              _________________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

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

                              _________________________

                                        Before

                                Selya, Circuit Judge,
                                       _____________

                      Coffin and Bownes, Senior Circuit Judges.
                                         _____________________

                              _________________________

               Jan Alan  Brody, with whom Carella,  Byrne, Bain, Gilfillan,
               _______________            _________________________________
          Cecchi, Stewart & Olstein,  William Vidal-Carvajal, and Hernandez
          _________________________   ______________________      _________
          & Vidal were on brief, for appellant.
          _______
               Arturo J. Garcia-Sola,  with whom Jose R.  Gonzalez-Irizarry
               _____________________             __________________________
          and  McConnell Valdes  were  on brief,  for  appellees Joseph  A.
               ________________
          Unanue, Frank Unanue, and Goya Foods, Inc. 
               Michael  R. Griffinger,  with whom  Crummy, Del  Deo, Dolan,
               ______________________              ________________________
          Griffinger & Vecchione and Guillermo A. Nigaglioni were on brief,
          ______________________     _______________________
          for remaining appellees.
















                    Per  Curiam.  This is  the latest chapter  in a dispute
                    Per  Curiam.
                    ___________

          that  has been  litigated  with fierce  tenacity  by the  debtor,

          Ulpiano Unanue-Casal,  a/k/a Charles Unanue.   See,  e.g., In  re
                                                         ___   ____  ______

          Unanue-Casal,  998  F.2d  28  (1st Cir.  1993);  Unanue-Casal  v.
          ____________                                     ____________

          Unanue-Casal, 898 F.2d 839 (1st Cir. 1990).  Although tenacity is
          ____________

          to be admired, it is sometimes misplaced.  So it is here.

                    We have  carefully reviewed  the voluminous record  and

          the  parties' briefs, and have duly considered the matters raised

          at oral argument.  In the end, we are persuaded that the district

          court  did not err in reversing the bankruptcy court's refusal to

          lift the automatic stay,  11 U.S.C.   362.  The  district court's

          well-conceived opinion, see In re Unanue Casal, Civ.  No. 92-1796
                                  ___ __________________

          GG (D.P.R. Aug. 3, 1993) (unpublished), adequately elucidates the

          reasoning that is controlling on  the central issue presented  by

          this  appeal, and no useful purpose would be served by rehearsing

          that  reasoning.  Similarly, we see no  basis for a remand to the

          bankruptcy court  for further  exploration of this  issue.   And,

          finally, appellant's other arguments are mere makeweights.

                    We need go no further.  Because this appeal presents no

          substantial  question of  law or  fact, we  summarily affirm  the

          judgment below.1





                    Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.
                    Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.
                    ________   ___

                              
          ____________________

               1We  take no  view of  appellees' claim  that the  appeal is
          moot, as the appeal is impuissant in any event.

                                          2