October 6, 1994         [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT




                                 ____________________


        No. 94-1665

                                MICHAEL ALAN CROOKER,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.


                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                   [Hon. Douglas P. Woodlock, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Cyr, Boudin and Stahl,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            Michael Alan Crooker on brief pro se.
            ____________________
            Donald K. Stern,  United States  Attorney, and  Karen L.  Goodwin,
            _______________                                 _________________
        Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.


                                 ____________________


                                 ____________________

























                 Per Curiam.   We have reviewed  the parties' briefs  and
                 __________

            the record  on appeal.  We agree with the district court that

            the  appellant has  not suffered  a "distinct  and palpable,"

            Conservation  Law Found. v. Reilly, 950 F.2d 38, 40 (1st Cir.
            ________________________    ______

            1991), "real and immediate," American Postal Workers Union v.
                                         _____________________________

            Frank, 968 F.2d 1373, 1375 (1st Cir. 1992), injury sufficient
            _____

            to  confer standing and that  federal, not state, law governs

            the  authority  of deputy  United  States  Marshals to  carry

            weapons.   Either of  these conclusions, by  itself, warrants

            affirming the district court order of dismissal.

                 Affirmed.
                 _________































                                         -2-