November 15, 1995     [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                                 NOT FOR PUBLICATION





                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT



                              _________________________



          No.  95-1367







                              MICHAEL E. FERRIS, ET AL.,



                               Plaintiffs, Appellants,



                                          v.



                   FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION, ET AL.,



                                Defendants, Appellees.





                                 ____________________





                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS



                 [Hon. Morris E. Lasker, Senior U.S. District Judge]
                                         __________________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Selya, Circuit Judge,
                                       _____________



                            Aldrich, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                     ____________________



                               and Cyr, Circuit Judge.
                                        _____________

                                 ____________________



               Thomas J. Gleason on brief for appellant.
               _________________

               Harvey M. Forman, Forman & Forman, and Robert O. Berger, III
               ________________  _______________      _____________________

          on joint brief for appellees.



                                 ____________________









                                 ____________________

























                    Per  Curiam.    The  plaintiffs,  disappointed  by  the
                    Per  Curiam.
                    ___________



          district  court's  findings  of   fact  and  conclusions  of  law



          following a bench trial, see Ferris v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage
                                   ___ ______    __________________________



          Corp., No. 94-10470,  slip op.  (D. Mass. Mar.  7, 1995),  appeal
          _____



          from  the ensuing judgment.   The standard of  review, though not



          insurmountable,  is daunting.   See  Cumpiano v.  Banco Santander
                                          ___  ________     _______________



          P.R., 902 F.2d 148,  152 (1st Cir. 1990) (describing  high degree
          ____



          of deference that must "be paid to the  trier's assessment of the



          evidence"  in a jury-waived trial); Reliance  Steel Prods. Co. v.
                                              __________________________



          National  Fire Ins.  Co., 880  F.2d 575,  576-77 (1st  Cir. 1989)
          ________________________



          (similar);  see also Fed. R. Civ.  P. 52(a).  This standard makes
                      ___ ____



          it  clear that an appellate tribunal "ought not to upset findings



          of  fact or conclusions drawn  therefrom unless, on  the whole of



          the  record, [the judges] form a strong, unyielding belief that a



          mistake has  been made."   Cumpiano, 902 F.2d  at 152.   In other
                                     ________



          words, as long as the district court's rendition of the record is



          plausible, our inquiry is at an end.



                    So  it is here.   We have carefully  reviewed the trial



          transcript,  the record on appeal,  and the parties'  briefs.  We



          discern  no error, and, given the standard of review, we perceive



          no fairly debatable issues demanding extended appellate scrutiny.



          Accordingly,  we  affirm   the  district  court's   judgment  for



          substantially  the reasons  elucidated  in  the  thorough,  well-



          reasoned opinion below.



                    We  need go no further.   The judgment  of the district



          court is summarily affirmed.  See 1st Cir. R. 27.1.
                                        ___











                                          2





















          Affirmed.
          Affirmed
          ________















































































































                                          3