February 9, 1995
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT



                                 ____________________


        No. 94-2064 

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                 AMBROSE L. DEVANEY,

                                Defendant, Appellant.


                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                     [Hon. William G. Young, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                 Selya, Circuit Judge,
                                        _____________
                          Bownes, Senior Circuit Judge, and
                                  ____________________
                                Stahl, Circuit Judge.
                                       _____________

                                 ____________________

            Ambrose L. Devaney on brief pro se.
            __________________
            Donald  K. Stern,  United  States Attorney,  and  Victor  A. Wild,
            ________________                                  _______________
        Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.


                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________






















                 Per Curiam.  During the pendency of the direct appeal of
                 __________

            his conviction  and sentence  for conspiracy, bank  fraud and

            money laundering, Ambrose  Devaney filed pro se  a motion for
                                                     ___ __

            discovery and  a motion  to  compel service  in the  district

            court.   Although  "[a]s  a general  rule  with only  limited

            exceptions, entry of a notice of appeal divests  the district

            court of  jurisdiction to  adjudicate any matters  related to

            the  appeal," United States v. Distasio, 820 F.2d 20, 23 (1st
                          _____________    ________

            Cir.  1987) (citing  cases), the  district court  denied both

            motions.    In these  circumstances, and  because we  find no

            substantial  question  presented by  the  pro  se appeal,  we
                                                      ___  __

            consider the appeal and dismiss it on its merits.  See United
                                                               ___ ______

            States  v. Buckley,  847 F.2d  991, 993  n.1 (1st  Cir. 1988)
            ______     _______

            (allowing  motion  to consolidate  a  motion  to vacate,  set

            aside, or correct sentence with pending direct appeal), cert.
                                                                    ____

            denied, 488  U.S. 1015  (1989); United  States v. Connell,  6
            ______                          ______________    _______

            F.3d 27,  29 (1st Cir. 1993)  (despite jurisdictional doubts,

            appellate court  entitled to  affirm dismissal on  the ground

            that no substantial question is presented on the merits).

                 We have reviewed  carefully the record in this  case and

            the briefs of the parties.  We find no abuse of discretion in

            the district court's  denial of  Devaney's discovery  motion.

            See  Buckley, 847  F.2d  at 1003  (post  judgment motion  for
            ___  _______

            discovery within discretion of district court).























                 Nor  do we  find  any error  in  the court's  denial  of

            Devaney's motion to compel  the government to serve him  as a

            pro se  litigant.  Since  Devaney was represented  by counsel
            ___ __

            before the  district court, his motion to  compel service was

            an implicit request to  proceed via "hybrid"  representation.

            McKaskle  v. Wiggins,  465  U.S. 168,  183  (1984).   Such  a
            ________     _______

            request lies in  the discretion of the district court, United
                                                                   ______

            States v.  Betancourt-Arretuche, 933 F.2d 89,  94 (1st Cir.),
            ______     ____________________

            cert.  denied, 502 U.S.  959 (1991), and we  find no abuse of
            ____   ______

            discretion in this case.

                 The  denial of  Devaney's  pro se  motions is  affirmed.
                                            ___ __              ________

            Devaney's motion  filed in  this court  to compel  service is

            denied.  Devaney's motion to file a supplemental statement of
            ______

            issues is denied.
                      ______

























                                         -3-