[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________





        No. 97-1471





                                    UNITED STATES,



                                      Appellee,



                                          v.



                                 WILLIAM H. NORTHUP,



                                Defendant, Appellant.



                                 ____________________





                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND



                     [Hon. Ernest C. Torres, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________

                           Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________



                                 ____________________



            Randy Olen and John M. Cicilline on brief for appellant.
            __________     _________________

            Sheldon Whitehouse, United States Attorney, and Stephanie S.
            __________________                              ____________

        Browne, Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.
        ______





                                 ____________________



                                   November 5, 1997

                                 ____________________





































                 Per Curiam.    Upon careful  review  of the  briefs  and
                 __________



            record, we reject defendant's contention that the evidence of



            possession  and  intent  to  distribute  was insufficient  to



            support his conviction  under 21 U.S.C.   841(a)(1).   To the



            contrary,  the testimony  of  the  police  officers  and  the



            special  narcotics   officer,  along   with  the   inferences



            reasonably  to be drawn therefrom, amply supported the jury's



            verdict.



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







































































                                         -2-