[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________





        No. 96-1879



                                HECTOR PAGES, ET AL.,



                                Plaintiffs, Appellees,



                                          v.



                                   MANUEL FEINGOLD,



                                Defendant, Appellant.



                                 ____________________





                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO



                    [Hon. Jose Antonio Fuste, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________

                           Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________



                                 ____________________



            Harry Hertzberg on brief for appellant.
            _______________

            Jesus E. Cuza, Ina M. Berlingeri-Vincenty and Goldman Antonetti &
            _____________  __________________________     ___________________

        Cordova on brief for appellees.
        _______





                                 ____________________



                                     May 6, 1997

                                 ____________________







































                 Per  Curiam.   Upon  careful  review of  the  briefs and
                 ___________



            record,  we conclude  that  this appeal  clearly presents  no



            substantial   question  and   that  summary   disposition  is



            appropriate.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.  
                          ___



                 We further conclude that, for  the reasons stated in the



            May  8, 1996,  order,  the district  court  acted within  its



            discretion   in     entering   default   against   defendant.



            Defendant's repeated failures  to comply  with discovery  and



            other orders justified that  sanction, of which defendant had



            been warned.  See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C).  
                        _____



                 Further, for the reasons stated in the opinion and order



            dated  June  7, 1996,  Pages v.  Feingold,  928 F.  Supp. 148
                                   _____     ________



            (D.P.R. 1996),  the district court properly  entered judgment



            for  plaintiff.    The  district court's  findings  that  the



            letters  written  by  defendant  were false  and  maliciously



            published, that plaintiff suffered damages thereby,  and that



            plaintiff was a private figure,  were amply supported by  the



            evidence  presented at  trial and consistent  with applicable



            Puerto Rico law as cited by the district court.  And, we find



            no  factual or  legal basis  for  defendant's assertion  of a



            qualified  immunity defense,  particularly  in  light of  the



            default.



                 The  district  court did  not  abuse  its discretion  in



            denying defendant's  motion to  recuse.  The  various remarks



            about which  defendant complains  do not create  a reasonable







                                         -2-





























            doubt  concerning  the district  judge's  impartiality.   See
                                                                      ___



            United States v. Lopez, 944 F.2d 33, 37 (1st Cir. 1991).
            _____________    _____



                 Plaintiff's  motion  to  dismiss  this  appeal  and  for



            sanctions  is  granted in  part.   In  light of  the numerous
                           ________________



            violations  of the  appellate  rules regarding  the form  and



            content of the brief  and appendix, we are persuaded  that an



            award of sanctions is appropriate.  See Fed. R. App.  P. 28 &
                                                ___



            30;  Reyes-Garcia v. Rodriguez & Del Valle, Inc., 82 F.3d 11,
                 ____________    ___________________________



            14-16 (1st Cir. 1996).   Therefore, we award double  costs to
                                                   ___________________



            plaintiff,  to   be  taxed  jointly   and  severally  against



            defendant and his attorney.  See Fed. R. App. P. 38.
                                         ___



                 Affirmed.
                 ________



























































                                         -3-