October 19, 1994
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 94-1559 

                               PETER N. GEORGACARAKOS,
                                Petitioner, Appellant,

                                          v.

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                Respondent, Appellee.
                                 ____________________

        No. 94-1750 

                               PETER N. GEORGACARAKOS,
                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                 Defendant, Appellee.
                                 ____________________

                    APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

                     [Hon. Morton A. Brody, U.S. District Judge]
                                            ___________________
                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Cyr, Boudin and Stahl,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________
                                 ____________________

            Peter N. Georgacarakos on brief pro se.
            ______________________
            Jay P.  McCloskey, United States  Attorney, and Michael M. DuBose,
            _________________                               _________________
        Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.


                                 ____________________


                                 ____________________

















                      Per Curiam.   After carefully reviewing the  record
                      __________

            and the  briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the

            district court.   We do  so essentially for  the reasons  set

            forth  in the  Report  and Recommendation  of the  magistrate

            judge  which was adopted by  the district court  in its order

            dated May 12, 1994.

                      Specifically, we agree that under the standards set

            forth  in  Strickland v.  Washington,  466  U.S. 668  (1984),
                       __________     __________

            counsel's choice to forego  an entrapment defense plainly was

            an  objectively reasonable choice, given appellant's criminal

            history and  the  evidence.   As  for the  jury  instructions

            concerning  venue, we add that even if they had been reviewed

            for abuse of discretion -- the standard of review  applicable

            to properly preserved objections -- appellant still would not

            have  prevailed.   Under  this standard,  "[t]he trial  court

            should be  reversed only  if the  instruction was capable  of

            confusing and thereby misleading the jury."  United States v.
                                                         _____________

            Fischbach  & Moore, Inc., 750 F.2d 1183, 1195 (3d Cir. 1984),
            ________________________

            cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1029 (1985).
            ____________

                      The  venue  instruction,  viewed in  light  of  all

            evidence,  was not  misleading.   As we  held in  appellant's

            direct appeal, even had the jury accepted appellant's version

            of the events, the evidence of venue in Maine  was "so clear"

            that  "no  reasonable  juror  could  have  found  otherwise."

            United States v. Georgacarakos, 988 F.2d 1289, 1297 (1st Cir.
            _____________    _____________



















            1993).  Further,  when the instruction  is considered in  the

            context of  the charge as a whole, it is plain that there was

            no abuse of discretion.  See United States v. Doane, 975 F.2d
                                     ___ _____________    _____

            8, 11 (1st  Cir. 1992)  (quoting Cupp v.  Naughten, 414  U.S.
                                             ____     ________

            141,  146-47  (1973)).   Given  our  findings concerning  the

            adequacy  of  the  instructions  on  constructive  and  joint

            possession, counsel's  failure to timely object  to the venue

            instruction  did  not deprive  appellant  of  "a trial  whose

            result  is  reliable."   See  Strickland,  466  U.S.  at 687.
                                     ___  __________

            Therefore, he was not prejudiced.

                      Because  we  affirm the  judgment  of the  district
                                   ______

            court, appellant's appeal of the denial of bail is moot.





























                                         -3-