[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________





        No. 97-1427



                                    UNITED STATES,



                                      Appellee,



                                          v.



                                   MICHAEL MERRIC,



                                Defendant, Appellant.



                                 ____________________





                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE



                     [Hon. Morton A. Brody, U.S. District Judge]
                                            ___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________

                          Boudin and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________



                                 ____________________



            Michael Merric on brief pro se.
            ______________

            Jay  P.  McCloskey,  United  States   Attorney,  and  Margaret  D.
            __________________                                    ____________

        McGaughey, Assistant United States Attorney,  on Memorandum of Law  in
        _________

        Support of Motion Pursuant to Loc. R. 27.1 for Summary Disposition for

        appellee.





                                 ____________________



                                   AUGUST 19, 1997

                                 ____________________



































                 Per  Curiam.   Assuming without  deciding  that we  have
                 ___________



            jurisdiction  to  hear  this  appeal,  and  having  carefully



            reviewed the briefs and record, we find no clear error in the



            order of commitment pursuant to 18 U.S.C.   4241(d).  



                 We  will   not   second-guess   the   district   court's



            determination of  the credibility of the psychiatric reports,



            even  supposing  that  issue of  credibility  was  not waived



            before the district  court.  Further, in the  context of this



            interlocutory  appeal from the   4241(d) commitment order, we



            have  no  call  to review  defendant's  complaints  about his



            medication and the underlying criminal charges.



                 The order is affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.
                              ________   ___



                 Appellant's  motion for stay pending appeal is denied as
                                                                ______



            moot.



















































                                         -2-