[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]







                              _________________________


          No. 97-1240


                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


                                      Appellee,


                                         v.


                                   MATTHEW ZSOFKA,


                                Defendant, Appellant.


                             __________________________


                    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE


                [Hon. Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr., U.S. District Judge]


                             __________________________


                                       Before


                          Selya and Lynch, Circuit Judges,


                         and Pollak*, Senior District Judge.


                             __________________________


               F. Michael Keefe
                               and 
                                   Jennifer R. Jones
                                                    on brief for appellant.

               Paul  
                    M.  
                        Gagnon, United States Attorney,   Mark  
                                                               D.  
                                                                   Seltzer,

          Director, New England Bank Fraud Task Force, and Paul J. Andrews,

          Trial Attorney, New England Bank Fraud Task Force, on brief for the

          United States.

               Joan 
                    McPhee, Heidi 
                                  Goldstein 
                                            Shepherd, and  Ropes 
                                                                 & 
                                                                   Gray on

          brief for Dime Savings Bank.


                                   August 5, 1997


          __________________________________

          *Of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.






                    Per Curiam
                             . Having carefully reviewed the record in this


          matter, we are fully persuaded that the district court lacked


          jurisdiction to grant the relief requested by the appellant in his


          initial motion. Consequently, this appeal must be dismissed. We


          explain briefly.


                    In general, federal courts are courts of limited


          jurisdiction. In particular, a district court's authority to


          revise a criminal defendant's sentence is restricted to those


          specific instances in which Congress has granted jurisdiction. 
                                                                        See


          United 
                 States v. Blackwell, 81 F.3d 945, 947 (10th Cir. 1996);


          United States v. Angiulo, 57 F.3d 38, 41 (1st Cir. 1995).


                    In this instance, the appellant has not identified any


          statute or rule conferring jurisdiction upon the district court to


          hear and determine his motion to amend sentence (which was filed


          more than three years after the imposition of sentence). Nor has


          he identified any other plausible basis on which such jurisdiction


          might be predicated. Instead, he tries to premise jurisdiction


          over his motion on "the ongoing equity jurisdiction of [the


          district] court."  See Appellant's Reply Brief at 6. This effort


          is unavailing; the appellant cites no pertinent authority in


          support of the proposition and, as a general principle, federal


                              


               We emphasize that the appellant has resolutely refused to

          characterize the motion in question   which he terms a motion to

          amend sentence   as a motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. S 2255

          (1994). In point of fact, the appellant did bring a      separate

          section 2255 petition advancing substantially the same argument.

          The district court denied the petition on October 21, 1996, and an

          appeal of that ruling is presently pending in this court (No. 96-

          2365). We take no view of that appeal in this proceeding.


                                          2






          courts have no "equity jurisdiction" in criminal cases.


                    That ends the matter. Because the district court lacked


          jurisdiction to hear and determine the motion to amend sentence,


          the court's order in respect thereto was a nullity,  as were the


          court's ensuing orders in regard to the various motions for


          reconsideration and intervention.


                    We need go no further. The defendant's appeal is


          summarily dismissed.  See 1st Cir. R. 27.1.






                    Appeal dismissed
                                   .  All parties will bear their own costs
                                                                          .
























                              


               The fact that the district court purported to act is of no

          moment. A jurisdictional defect of this kind may be noticed at any

          time.  See Fed R. Crim. P. 12(b)(2);   see also United 
                                                                 States v.

          DiSanto, 86 F.3d 1238, 1244 (1st Cir. 1996) (reaffirming that the

          district court's supposed lack of jurisdiction may be raised for

          the first time on appeal), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 1109 (1997).


                                          3