[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT











                                 ____________________





        No. 96-2143



                                     JOSE DEMELO,



                                Petitioner, Appellee,



                                          v.



                               CHARLES T. COBB, ET AL.,



                               Respondents, Appellants.



                                 ____________________



                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS



                     [Hon. Robert E. Keeton, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                 Selya, Circuit Judge,
                                        _____________

                              Cyr, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                   ____________________

                              and Lynch, Circuit Judge.
                                         _____________



                                 ____________________



            Frank  W.  Hunger, Assistant  Attorney  General,  Civil  Division,
            _________________

        David  M. McConnell,  Assistant  Director, and  Kristen A.  Giuffreda,
        ___________________                             _____________________

        Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, Department

        of Justice, on Motion to Vacate for appellants.





                                 ____________________



                                  February 27, 1997

                                 ____________________





























                 Per  Curiam.   Section 440(c)  of the  Antiterrorism and
                 ___________



            Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110



            Stat. 1214,  1277 (Apr. 24,  1996) (AEDPA), provides  for the



            mandatory  detention of certain categories of criminal aliens



            pending  deportation proceedings.   The  district  court here



            determined  that   440(c) did not apply to those aliens, such



            as  petitioner,  who had  been  convicted  and released  from



            incarceration prior to AEDPA's effective date.  See DeMelo v.
                                                            ___ ______



            Cobb, 936 F. Supp.  30 (D. Mass. 1996).   Respondents, having
            ____



            appealed from this ruling, now suggest  that their appeal has



            become  moot in  light of  the  intervening enactment  of the



            Illegal Immigration  Reform and Immigrant  Responsibility Act



            of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009 (Sept. 30, 1996)



            (IIRIRA).   As a result, they request that the district court



            order be  vacated "to the extent it  relies on a finding that



            section  440(c) of the AEDPA  is inapplicable," and also that



            the case be remanded for further proceedings.  Petitioner has



            filed no opposition.



                 We agree that the advent of IIRIRA has rendered moot the



            question  of  whether  AEDPA's mandatory-detention  provision



            applies  here--the sole  issue raised  on appeal.   With  the



            implementation of the "transition period  custody rules," see
                                                                      ___



            IIRIRA   303(b)(3), section  440(c) of AEDPA has specifically



            been  rendered inoperative  during  the interim  period,  see
                                                                      ___



            IIRIRA   303(b)(2); the  question of AEDPA's applicability is







                                         -2-





























            thus no longer in  contention.  In so concluding,  we express



            no opinion  as  to whether  IIRIRA's  transitional  rules--as



            opposed to the rules  governing detention under the pre-AEDPA



            regime, to the extent they might differ--apply to petitioner.



                 We  likewise  agree that  it  is  appropriate under  the



            circumstances  to vacate  the district  court's order  to the



            extent  it relies  on a  finding  that    440(c) of  AEDPA is



            inapplicable.   See, e.g., United States  v. Munsingwear, 340
                            ___  ____  _____________     ___________



            U.S. 36, 39  (1950); Knight  v. Mills, 836  F.2d 659,  671-72
                                 ______     _____



            (1st  Cir.  1987)  (ordering  partial  vacatur);  Bethell  v.
                                                              _______



            Florida,  741 F.2d 1341,  1342 (11th Cir.  1984) (per curiam)
            _______



            (similar).



                 The motion  to vacate  is allowed; the  district court's
                 ________________________________________________________



            order of  June 19, 1996 is  vacated as moot to  the extent it
            _____________________________________________________________



            relies on a finding  that   440(c) of AEDPA  is inapplicable.
            _____________________________________________________________



            The case  is  remanded  to the  district  court  for  further
            _____________________________________________________________



            proceedings as appropriate.
            ___________________________







































                                         -3-