[NOT FOR PUBLICATION--NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]



                 United States Court of Appeals

                     For the First Circuit

                                

                                







No. 95-1423



                          UNITED STATES,



                            Appellee,



                                v.



                    JAMES MICHAEL MURPHY, JR.,



                      Defendant, Appellant.







           APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS



         [Hon. Douglas P. Woodlock, U.S. District Judge]







                              Before



                      Boudin, Circuit Judge,

                 Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge,

                   and Lynch, Circuit Judge.

                                

                                





     James Michael Murphy, Jr. on brief pro se.

     Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney, James B. Farmer and

Stephen P. Heymann, Assistant United States Attorneys, and Kathleen

A. Felton, Attorney, Department of Justice, on brief for appellee.













May 19, 1998





                                

                                

            Per Curiam.  Upon careful review of the briefs and

    the portions of the record transmitted to this court, we

    conclude that defendant's conviction and sentence should be

    upheld.  None of the issues briefed by defendant suggest to us

    that a new trial is warranted.  Particularly:

              1.   The district court did not abuse its discretion

    in determining that the Joyce affidavit should be admitted.  In

    our view, the circumstances in which the affidavit was made

    provide indicia of reliability sufficient to overcome

    defendant's arguments about the hearsay rule and the

    Confrontation Clause.  

              2.   The district court also acted within its

    discretion in admitting the limited evidence as to Methuen and

    Quinn, as relevant to establish the identity of the Fitchburg

    participants, and we cannot say that such evidence was overly

    prejudicial in the circumstances. 

              3.   We reject defendant's arguments about the

    testimony of Ryan.  

              4.   We cannot say that the district court abused its

    considerable discretion in dismissing certain jurors whose voir

    dire responses were substantially incomplete.  

             5.   We find no abuse of discretion in the denial

  without prejudice of defendant's initial non-specific motion

  for investigative services.  

            6.   Defendant's allegations of government misconduct

  are unsupported by the record.  

       7.   We find no merit whatsoever in defendant's claim

    that his federal sentence is improper in relation to a pre-

    existing state sentence, even assuming that such claim would be

    within the scope of our jurisdiction for this appeal.  

        8.   Having found no specific error among those

    alleged by defendant, we cannot find that any cumulative error

    warrants reversal here.

        Defendant's "motion for leave to file additional due

    process violation" is denied.  We have no jurisdiction in this

    appeal to consider the post-judgment events of which defendant

    complains.

        The judgment is affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.