[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]


                           UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT




                                ____________________



       No. 97-1338


                                   RENE J. NADEAU,


                                Plaintiff, Appellant,


                                         v.


                              INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,

                             DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,


                                Defendant, Appellee.


                                ____________________


                    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS


                    [Hon. Nancy J. Gertner, U.S. District Judge]


                                ____________________


                                       Before


                               Selya, Boudin and Stahl,

                                   Circuit Judges.


                                ____________________


            Rene J. Nadeau on brief pro se.

            Donald  
                   K.  
                       Stern, United States Attorney,    Loretta  
                                                                 C.  
                                                                     Argrett,

       Assistant Attorney General,    Teresa  E.  McLaughlin, Tax Division,

       Department of Justice, and Robert W. Metzler, Tax Division, Department

       of Justice, on brief for appellee.



                                ____________________


                                    July 29, 1997

                                ____________________







                 Per 
                     Curiam. Upon careful review, it appears that the


            facts and legal arguments are adequately presented in the


            briefs and record and that our decision would not be


            significantly aided by oral argument. Accordingly, we    deny


            appellant's request for oral argument.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R.


            34.1.


                 We conclude that summary judgment was properly entered for


            the IRS with respect to plaintiff's claim under the Freedom of


            Information Act. Jurisdiction to grant relief under 5 U.S.C.


            S 552(a)(4)(B) exists only if there is "a showing that an


            agency has (1) 'improperly' (2) 'withheld' (3) 'agency


            records.'"   United  
                                 States  
                                         Department  
                                                     of  
                                                         Justice v.   Tax


            Analysts, 492 U.S. 136, 142 (1989). Here, in moving for


            summary judgment, the IRS presented affidavits establishing


            that there were no additional documents to be disclosed; in


            response, plaintiff relied on only conclusory statements and


            unsupported speculation. In those circumstances, there was no


            "genuine issue as to any material fact and . . . the moving


            party [was] entitled to a judgment as a matter of law."   See


            Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Medina-Munoz v. R.J. 
                                                        Reynolds 
                                                                  Tobacco


            Co., 896 F.2d 5, 8 (1st Cir. 1990).


                 The Anti-Injunction Act, 26 U.S.C. S 7421(a), bars


            plaintiff's claim for injunction against tax collection.


            Neither the statutory nor the judicial exceptions to that Act






                                         -2-







            have any application here.  See Enochs v. Williams 
                                                               Packing 
                                                                        &


            Navigation Co., 370 U.S. 1, 7 (1962).


                 Plaintiff has not briefed appellate arguments regarding


            his claims for a refund of amounts already collected and for


            damages, and those claims do not merit further discussion here.


                 We also deny plaintiff's requests for orders "stopping"


            the levy and refunding amounts already collected and for


            reconsideration of the denial of a temporary injunction pending


            appeal.


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


































                                         -3-