[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________



        No. 97-1009



                                 SMITH-BARNEY, INC.,



                                 Plaintiff, Appellee,



                                          v.



                                    URSULA EKINCI,



                                 Defendant, Appellee.

                                      __________



                              STANLEY A. TEITLER, P.C.,



                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________





                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE



                     [Hon. D. Brock Hornby, U.S. District Judge]
                                            ___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                 Selya, Circuit Judge,
                                        _____________

                            Bownes, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                    ____________________

                              and Boudin, Circuit Judge.
                                          _____________



                                 ____________________



            Stanley A.  Teitler, Stanley A.  Teitler, P.C. and Scott Goldstein
            ___________________  _________________________     _______________

        on brief for appellant Stanley A. Teitler, P.C.

            Andrew  M. Horton and Verrill  & Dana on brief  for appellee Smith
            _________________     _______________

        Barney, Inc.

            Douglas F. Jennings on brief for appellee Ursula Ekinci.
            ___________________



                                 ____________________



                                    JUNE 18, 1997

                                 ____________________





























                 Per Curiam.  Upon  careful consideration of the parties'
                 __________



            briefs  and the record, we find appellant's contentions to be



            without  merit.     The  district   court's  order  correctly



            explained the validity and  priority of the competing claims.



            Smith Barney, Inc. v. Ekinci, 937 F. Supp. 59 (D. Me. 1996).
            __________________    ______



                 Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.
                 ________   ___



















































































                                         -2-