[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        Nos. 94-1052
             94-1322  

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                      LEO HAMEL,

                                Defendant, Appellant.
                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                     [Hon. Joseph L. Tauro, U.S. District Judge]
                                            ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                             Boudin, Circuit Judge, and 
                                     _____________
                             Barbadoro,* District Judge. 
                                         ______________

                                 ____________________

            Michael C. Bourbeau, Esq. with whom  Bourbeau and Bourbeau was  on
            _________________________            _____________________
        brief for appellant.
            Donald  K.  Stern,  United  States  Attorney,  with  whom   Nadine
            _________________                                           ______
        Pellegrini,    Assistant United  States  Attorney,  was  on brief  for
        __________
        appellee.
                                 ____________________
                                   October 6, 1994
                                 ____________________





                            
        ____________________

        *Of the District of New Hampshire, sitting by designation.














                    Per Curiam.   After  jury trial  in  the  district  court,
                    Per Curiam
                    __________

        defendant Leo Hamel was convicted  of violation of 18 U.S.C.    371 of

        conspiracy  to  commit  bank  fraud  and  conspiracy  to   make  false

        statements  for the purpose of influencing the actions of Dime Savings

        Bank, a federally insured bank.  He now appeals his conviction.

                    Defendant  originally appealed  on  two grounds.   In  his

        brief, he first argued that the government failed to prove as a matter

        of law  that Hamel  knowingly made  a false  statement with  intent to

        influence a  federally insured financial institution.   As defendant's

        counsel correctly conceded during oral  argument, however, defendant's

        argument on this point is precluded by this Court's recent decision in

        United States  v. Brandon, 17 F.3d  409, 426 (1st Cir.  1994) ("It has
        _____________     _______

        been established that the government does not have to show the alleged

        scheme was  directed  solely toward  a particular  institution; it  is
                              ______

        sufficient  to show  that  defendant knowingly  executed a  fraudulent

        scheme that exposed a federally insured bank to risk of loss.").  

                    This  concession  leaves  us  with  defendant's  remaining

        argument on appeal, that  there was insufficient evidence as  a matter

        of law to  convict him of conspiracy under   371.  We have stated that

        in  assessing a sufficiency challenge, we examine the evidence "in the

        light  most flattering to the  prosecution (in the  process of drawing

        all  reasonable  inferences in  its favor)  so  that we  may ascertain

        whether  the proof  would have  allowed a  rational jury  to determine

        beyond  a reasonable doubt that the defendant  was guilty of the crime

        charged."  United States v. Ortiz, 966 F.2d 707, 711  (1st Cir. 1992),
                   _____________    _____

        cert.  denied, __  U.S. __,  113 S.  Ct. 1005  (1993).   There are  no
        ____   ______


                                         -2-
                                          2














        specific requirements of proof of a conspiratorial agreement; we  have

        held  that the agreement may be express or tacit, and may be proved by

        direct or  circumstantial evidence.   United States  v. Sep lveda,  15
                                              _____________     _________

        F.3d 1161, 1173 (1st Cir. 1993), cert. denied,  __ U.S. __, 114 S. Ct.
                                         ____  ______

        2714 (1994).  

                    Applying  these   standards  for  review   of  defendant's

        conspiracy  conviction,  we  easily  find that  there  was  sufficient

        evidence to  support a jury  finding beyond  a reasonable doubt  of an

        agreement to defraud Dime Savings Bank and to present false statements

        to  Dime.   For  these reasons,  we  reject defendant's  challenge and

        affirm his conviction.  

                    Affirmed.
                    ________






























                                         -3-
                                          3