April 19, 1994        [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                              _________________________

          No. 93-2219

                                 ERIC APONTE, ET AL.,

                               Plaintiffs, Appellants,

                                          v.

                         PUERTO RICO MARINE MANAGEMENT, INC.,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.

                              _________________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

                    [Hon. Jaime Pieras, Jr., U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                              _________________________

                                        Before

                                 Breyer, Chief Judge,
                                         ___________

                         Torruella and Selya, Circuit Judges.
                                              ______________

                              _________________________

               Harry Anduze Montano for appellants.
               ____________________
               Rafael Cuevas  Kuinlam with whom Antonio  Cuevas Delgado and
               ______________________           _______________________
          Cuevas, Kuinlam & Bermudez were on brief, for appellee.
          __________________________

                              __________________________



                              __________________________

           




















                    Per Curiam.  This  case appears before us for  a second
                    Per Curiam.
                    __________

          time.  In the earlier proceeding, we vacated the district court's

          order  dismissing plaintiffs' libel claim.   See Aponte v. Puerto
                                                       ___ ______    ______

          Rico Marine Mgmt.,  Inc., No.  92-2056 (1st Cir.  Mar. 16,  1993)
          ________________________

          (unpublished).   On remand, defendant moved  for summary judgment

          on the libel claim.  The district court, in a thoughtful opinion,

          found   that  the   uncontradicted  evidence   showed   that  the

          publication  of  the  allegedly  defamatory  comments  was  quite

          limited and  fell comfortably within  the scope of  the qualified

          privilege recognized by the Puerto Rico Supreme Court in Porto v.
                                                                   _____

          Bentley Puerto  Rico, Inc., No.  RE-89-123 (P.R. Dec.  23, 1992).
          __________________________

          See Aponte  v. Puerto Rico  Marine Mgmt., Inc.,  No. 91-2222(JP),
          ___ ______     _______________________________

          (D.P.R. Aug. 27, 1993).  Plaintiffs appeal.  We affirm.

                    As  we have  indicated  before, when  a district  court

          produces a well-reasoned opinion that reaches the correct result,

          a reviewing tribunal should not rush to write at length merely to

          put matters in its own  words.  See, e.g., In re  San Juan Dupont
                                          ___  ____  ______________________

          Plaza Hotel Fire Litig., 989  F.2d 36, 38 (1st Cir. 1993).  So it
          _______________________

          is here.  We agree  with the court below that, in this  case, the

          summary judgment  record contains  no  evidence that  defendant's

          publication  of the alleged libel  fell outside the  scope of the

          qualified  privilege  available  under  Puerto  Rico  law.    We,

          therefore, summarily affirm the judgment below, for substantially

          the reasons articulated in the district court's rescript.  We add

          only  that, in all  events, we  are hard-pressed  to see  how the

          communication in question canplausibly be classified as libelous.


                                          2














                    We  need go no further.   The judgment  of the district

          court is 





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












































                                          3