September 29, 1995      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT



                        



                                 ____________________





        No. 95-1269



                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,



                                      Appellee,



                                          v.



                               RICHARD B. HUDSON, SR.,



                                Defendant, Appellant.





                                 ____________________



                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE



                       [Hon. Gene Carter, U.S. District Judge]
                                          ___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________

                           Selya and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________



                                 ____________________



            Richard B. Hudson, Sr. on brief pro se.
            ______________________

            Jay P.  McCloskey, United  States Attorney,  and F. Mark  Terison,
            _________________                                ________________

        Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.





                                 ____________________





                                 ____________________







































































































































































                 Per Curiam.  The  judgment is affirmed substantially for
                 __________



            the reasons recited by the Magistrate-Judge in his Report and



            Recommendation  dated  December  14,   1994.    We  add  that



            defendant's  claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, even



            if properly before us, would  necessarily fail on the merits.



            Contrary  to defendant's  suggestion,  the  record before  us



            discloses no significant discrepancies between the debriefing



            statements,  on the one hand, and the trial testimony, on the



            other, of  the  two witnesses  in question.   And  as we  had



            occasion to observe  in our  decision on  direct appeal,  see
                                                                      ___



            United States v. Hudson, 970 F.2d 948, 950-54 (1st Cir. 1992)
            _____________    ______



            (passim),  co-defense  counsel  conducted a  diligent  cross-
             ______



            examination of these and all other witnesses. 



                 Affirmed.
                 _________



















































                                         -3-