[NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]

                 United States Court of Appeals

                     For the First Circuit











No. 00-1247



                    SOUTHEX EXHIBITIONS, INC.,



                      Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                v.



             RHODE ISLAND BUILDERS ASSOCIATION, INC.,



                       Defendant, Appellee.







           APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                 FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND



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







                              Before



                    Boudin, Stahl and Lynch,

                        Circuit Judges.

                                

                                

                                

                                

     Leland P. Schermer, Gregg D. Orsag and Sweeney Metz Fox

McGrann & Schermer, L.L.C. on brief for appellant.

     James M. Sloan, III and Gardner, Sawyer, Gates & Sloan on

brief for appellee.











March 2, 2000







                                

                                



  

            Per Curiam.    Southex Exhibitions, Inc. ("Southex")

  appeals from the denial of a preliminary injunction, and it has

  requested an expedited decision.  Neither party has requested

  oral argument, and we have concluded that it is not necessary. 

  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 34(b).  We affirm.

            Although it bore the burden to do so, Southex makes

  no developed argument in its brief on irreparable harm. 

  Rather, it addresses the issue in a single sentence and brief

  footnote without developed argumentation or citation to the

  record.  We have repeatedly stated that it is not enough merely

  to mention a possible argument in the most skeletal way,

  leaving the court to do counsel's work.  See, e.g., United

  States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1, 17 (1st Cir. 1990).  The needed

  showing of irreparable harm has not been made.

            As to likelihood of success, there may well be

  legitimate arguments on both sides, but nothing we have seen

  decisively weights the case in Southex's favor.  That is enough

  to justify denial of a preliminary injunction, at least in the

  absence of overwhelming equities in support of an injunction. 

  The district court referred briefly to harm on both sides

  without discussing whether it would be irreparable; and as we

  have already noted, Southex has made little effort to persuade

  us on this issue.

            Affirmed.