UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________





        No. 96-2310



                                     LUIS ROSADO,



                                Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                          v.



                           CORRECTIONS, ME WARDEN, ET AL.,



                                Defendants, Appellees.





                                 ____________________





                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE



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



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________

                           Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                     ____________________

                              and Boudin, Circuit Judge.
                                          _____________



                                 ____________________



            Timothy S.  Murphy  and Gardner  Gardner  &  Murphy on  brief  for
            __________________      ___________________________

        appellant.

            Andrew Ketterer, Attorney General,  Mary M. Sauer  and Charles  K.
            _______________                     _____________      ___________

        Leadbetter, Assistant Attorneys General, on brief for appellees.
        __________





                                 ____________________



                                    March 26, 1997

                                 ____________________





































                      Per Curiam.   Petitioner  Luis Rosado has  filed an
                      __________



            application for a  writ of  habeas corpus under  28 U.S.C.   



            2254.  In it, he argues  that the Maine statute setting forth



            the circumstances under which a juvenile may be prosecuted as



            an adult,  see 15  M.R.S.A.    3101(4), violates  due process
                       ___



            because it directs the juvenile court to use  a preponderance



            of the evidence standard in determining when such prosecution



            is required; Rosado maintains that  the Constitution mandates



            a standard  of clear and  convincing evidence.   The district



            court  denied the application for the writ on the merits, but



            granted a certificate of probable cause to appeal.



                      We treat  this certificate as a recommendation that



            we  issue a  certificate  of appealability  ("CAP") under  28



            U.S.C.   2253, as amended  by the Antiterrorism and Effective



            Death  Penalty Act of 1996.   See 28  U.S.C.   2253(c)(1)(B).
                                          ___



            We  agree  that  a  substantial  question  is  presented  and



            therefore grant Rosado's request for  a CAP.  However,  since



            we  believe that  oral argument  would not be  of significant



            assistance -- the parties have fully briefed the case and the



            issue turns on parsing Supreme Court precedents -- we proceed



            directly to the merits.



                      Three circuit courts  of appeal have addressed  the



            same question  in relation to the  federal transfer provision



            contained in the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency  Prevention



            Act.    See 18  U.S.C.    5032.    These courts  hold  that a
                    ___







                                         -2-





























            preponderance  of  the  evidence  standard is  all  that  due



            process requires.  See United States v. I.D.P., 102 F.3d 507,
                               ___ _____________    ______



            513-14 (11th  Cir. 1996);  United States  v. T.F.F.,  55 F.3d
                                       _____________     ______



            1118, 1122 (6th  Cir. 1995);  United States v.  Doe, 49  F.3d
                                          _____________     ___



            859, 868 (2d Cir. 1995).  We agree with the result reached by



            these  courts.   Because  the cases  adequately  set out  the



            relevant  analysis,  including  reference  to  the  pertinent



            Supreme Court cases, we  see no reason to repeat it here, but



            we  believe that  a published  opinion by  this court  may be



            useful to district courts in this circuit.



                      Finally, Rosado  cites a  number of state  cases in



            support of his position that due process requires a clear and



            convincing evidence  standard.  Examination reveals  that the



            courts in these cases either adopted such a standard by court



            rule or by  reference to  a state statute  so providing;  the



            courts that did  consider due process  claims did not  decide



            what minimum standard of proof was required.
                 _______



                      The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
                                                            ________



































                                         -3-