February 16, 1995     [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]


                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                              _________________________

          No. 94-2081

                 RHODE ISLAND HIGHER EDUCATION ASSISTANCE AUTHORITY,
                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                    RICHARD RILEY, SECRETARY OF EDUCATION, ET AL.,
                                Defendants, Appellees.

                              _________________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

                    [Hon. Ronald R. Lagueux, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                              _________________________

                                        Before

                          Selya and Boudin, Circuit Judges,
                                            ______________

                             and Carter,* District Judge.
                                          ______________

                              _________________________

               Joseph R. Palumbo, Jr. for appellant.
               ______________________
               Neil  H.  Koslowe,  Special  Litigation  Counsel,  Dep't  of
               _________________
          Justice, with  whom Frank W. Hunger,  Assistant Attorney General,
                              _______________
          Sheldon Whitehouse, United  States Attorney, and William  Kanter,
          __________________                               _______________
          Deputy Director, were on brief, for appellees.

                              _________________________



                              _________________________
          __________________
          *Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the District
          of Maine, sitting by designation.

                                           


















                    Per Curiam.   This appeal seeks  to test the  appropri-
                    Per Curiam.
                    __________

          ateness of an order of the Secretary of Education implementing 20

          U.S.C.    1072(e) (repealed).  Specifically,  the contested order

          involves  the Secretary's  denial  of appellant's  request for  a

          waiver that would have  shielded it from the consequences  of its

          noncompliance with a particular requirement of the statute.

                    We have read the briefs, perused the voluminous record,

          entertained  oral argument, and studied the applicable law.  When

          all is said and done, we are convinced that, at bottom, this case

          turns  on  deference  to  the Secretary's  exercise  of  informed

          discretion, and that the Secretary's insistence on the forthright

          implementation of  the statute's "cap" on  maximum allowable cash

          reserves,  as exemplified  by  his denial  of appellant's  waiver

          request, is not "arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to

          the  statute."   See  Chevron U.S.A.  Inc.  v. Natural  Resources
                           ___  ____________________     __________________

          Defense Council, Inc.,  467 U.S. 837, 844 (1984).   Since no more
          _____________________

          is exigible, the Secretary's ruling must stand.  Put another way,

          the "inescapable conclusion" that appellant's counsel entreats us

          to draw eludes us (as it did the Secretary and the court below).

                    To go further would  serve no useful purpose.   We have

          already written  at length about  this very situation,  see Rhode
                                                                  ___ _____

          Island  Higher Educ. Assistance Auth.  v. Secretary of Educ., 929
          _____________________________________     __________________

          F.2d 844 (1st Cir. 1991)  (vacating earlier district court  order

          and  remanding for  further proceedings);  the Secretary  and the

          district   court   each   dealt   creditably   with   appellant's

          asseverations   in  their  respective   decisions  following  our


                                          2
















          original remand; and the appeal, in its present posture, presents

          no fairly debatable issue  of either fact or law.   Consequently,

          we  affirm  the  judgment  below for  substantially  the  reasons

          elucidated in the district court's well-considered rescript.  See
                                                                        ___

          Rhode Island  Higher  Educ. Assistance  Auth. v.  Riley, No.  92-
          _____________________________________________     _____

          0623L, slip op. at 5-8 (D.R.I. Aug. 19, 1994).





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




































                                          3