December 28, 1995       [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT



                           



                                 ____________________





        No. 95-1267 



                               PETER RAYMOND CUMMINGS,



                                Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                          v.



                           HONORABLE EDWARD W. HANSON, JR.,



                                 Defendant, Appellee.



                                 ____________________





        No. 95-1418 



                               PETER RAYMOND CUMMINGS,



                                Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                          v.



                            EDWARD W. HANSON, JR., ET AL.,



                                Defendants, Appellees.





                                 ____________________



                    APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS



                      [Hon. Nancy Gertner, U.S. District Judge]
                                           ___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Cyr, Boudin and Lynch,

                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________



                                 ____________________



            Matthew  Cobb  on  Opposition  to  Appellees'  Motion for  Summary
            _____________























        Affirmance and Motion to Dismiss Appeal.

            W. Mark Dunn,  Assistant Attorney General,  on Motion  for Summary
            ____________

        Affirmance for appellees the  Honorable Edward W. Hanson, Jr.  and the

        Honorable Ronald H. Marks.

            William Shaw  McDermott,  William  C.  Nystrom and  Kirkpatrick  &
            _______________________   ____________________      ______________

        Lockhart  on Motion for Summary Disposition for appellee Dominion Bank
        ________

        of Greater Hampton Roads, N.A.

            Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, Alan R. Miller, John N. Love,  J.
            _______________________________  ______________  ____________   __

        Jonathan Schraub, and Danny M. Howell on Motion for Summary Affirmance
        ________________      _______________

        for appellees John W. Richardson, Stallings, Richardson & Rawls, P.C.,

        John F. Rixey, Julian A. Bryant, Jr., Dinsmore, Evans and Bryant,  and

        Joseph Lyle, Jr.





                                 ____________________





                                 ____________________















































































































                      Per Curiam.  We agree with  the district court that
                      __________



            appellant  had   no  business  bringing  this   case  in  the



            Massachusetts  district  court.     Whatever  thin  technical



            arguments could be made in favor of personal jurisdiction and



            venue in Massachusetts, appellant's  counsel had to know that



            this case would be dismissed or transferred to Virginia since



            it  had ample contacts with  Virginia and virtually none with



            Massachusetts.  Indeed,  counsel acknowledged  that the  case



            was  likely  to  be  transferred  to  Virginia  even  if  the



            technical arguments prevailed.



                      Under these circumstances, we think  that dismissal



            rather  than  transfer  was  a permissible  choice  and  that



            sanctions of $1,000 jointly  and $1,000 against counsel alone



            were appropriate.  We prefer  to rest our affirmance entirely



            on Fed.  R. Civ. P.  11(b)(1) (improper purpose)  rather than



            11(b)(2)   (frivolous  legal   contentions)   but   have   no



            disagreement  whatever as to  the total amount.   The request



            for  further sanctions  on appeal  is denied, but  counsel is



            cautioned against a repetition of such conduct.



                      Affirmed.
                      ________



























                                         -3-