[NOT FOR PUBLICATION--NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]



                 United States Court of Appeals

                     For the First Circuit

                                

                                







No. 98-1463



                       IN RE: GRAND JURY,  



                           Petitioner.









           APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS



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







                              Before



                      Torruella, Chief Judge,

                 Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge,

                   and Stahl, Circuit Judge.

                                

                                





     William J. Murphy on brief for petitioner.

     Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney, Emily R. Schulman,

Assistant U.S. Attorney, and Patrick M. Hamilton, Assistant U.S.

Attorney, on brief for appellee.











May 26, 1998







                                

                                











            Per Curiam.  Upon careful review of the briefs and

    record, we conclude that, even if the district court might

    better have allowed the witness some additional notice or

    preparation time before the contempt hearing, any such

    procedural deficiency was harmless error.  

              The witness now asserts that, given the opportunity,

    she would claim that her refusal to testify is justified by a

    suspicion of illegal electronic surveillance.  In response, the

    government has presented affidavits sufficient to deny that the

    grand jury inquiry was based on any such illegal activity.  SeeIn re Tse, 748 F.2d 722, 727-28 (1st Cir. 1984); In re Quinn,

    525 F.2d 222, 225 (1st Cir. 1975).  Therefore, we conclude that

    further proceedings to explore such a claim would be futile.

              In spite of the witness's request, we do not have

    authority in these circumstances to direct the location or

    conditions of her confinement.  

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