[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]







                              _________________________


          No. 97-1080


                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


                                      Appellee,


                                         v.


                                    WILLIAM CHEN,


                                Defendant, Appellant.


                              _________________________


                    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS


                   [Hon. Richard G. Stearns, U.S. District Judge]


                              _________________________


                                       Before


                                Selya, Circuit Judge,


                            Hill,* Senior Circuit Judge,


                             and Boudin, Circuit Judge.


                              _________________________


               Robert L. Sheketoff
                                 , with whom 
                                             Sheketoff & Homan
                                                              was on brief,

          for appellant. 

               Kevin P. McGrath
                              , Assistant United States Attorney, with whom

          Donald  
                 K.  
                     Stern, United States Attorney, was on brief, for

          appellee.


                              _________________________



                                   August 5, 1997

                              _________________________




          _______________

          *Of the Eleventh Circuit, sitting by designation.






           






                    Per 
                        Curiam. Having read the parties' briefs, listened


          carefully to the arguments of distinguished counsel, perused the


          trial transcript, and scrutinized the district court's charge to


          the jury, we are persuaded that the instructions adequately covered


          the gist of the defendant's requests. To be sure, the precise


          tenor of jury instructions will vary from judge to judge, and the


          instructions in this instance were not quite what the defendant


          wanted in certain respects. Still, these discrepancies constituted


          variations in shading only, and did not affect the substance of the


          legal principles conveyed by the judge to the jurors. Indeed, the


          charge as given was in some ways more favorable than that which the


          defendant requested. 


                    We need go no further: it is axiomatic in this circuit,


          as elsewhere, that the trial judge may put legal principles into


          his or her own words, without any obligation to parrot language


          that the defendant prefers, as long as the instructions as given


          cover the substance of the applicable law in an even-handed manner.


          See, e.g., United 
                            States v. DeStefano, 59 F.3d 1, 2-3 (1st Cir.


          1995); 
                United States
                              v. 
                                 McGill, 953 F.2d 10, 12-13 (1st Cir. 1992);


          United States v. Cintolo, 818 F.2d 980, 1004 (1st Cir. 1987).




                    Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. R. 27.1.











                                          3