Mount v. United States ( 1993 )

USCA1 Opinion

          March 16, 1993        [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]


                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ___________________


          No. 92-1576

            


                                  CHARLES M. MOUNT,

                                Petitioner, Appellant,

                                          v.

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                Respondent, Appellee.


                                  __________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                       [Hon. Rya W. Zobel, U.S. District Judge]
                                           ___________________

                                 ___________________

                                        Before

                                Selya, Cyr and Boudin,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ___________________

               Charles Merrill Mount on brief pro se.
               _____________________
               A.  John Pappalardo,  United States  Attorney, and  Tobin N.
               ___________________                                 ________
          Harvey, Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.
          ______



                                  __________________

                                  __________________


















                 Per  Curiam.    Charles  Merrill Mount  appeals  from  a
                 ___________

            district  court  order  denying  his  motion  for  return  of

            $18,400.  Following his  arrest for violation of 18  U.S.C.  

            2314,  those  funds were  seized  from a  safety  deposit box

            maintained  by  Mount  in  the District  of  Columbia.    And

            following his conviction, those funds were ordered to be paid

            in  restitution to  Goodspeed's,  the  antiquarian book  shop

            which  had suffered  a $20,000  loss as  a result  of Mount's

            crimes.   There is ample  reason to believe  that the $18,400

            was  the unspent balance of the very funds that had been paid

            by Goodspeed's  for historical  documents that Mount  did not

            own but had wrongly sold to Goodspeed's.

                 Mount now  argues that  all of the  historical documents

            which  he sold to Goodspeed's  were stricken from  Count I of

            the  indictment at  trial, with  the result  that Goodspeed's

            suffered  no  actual  loss  and  thus  was  not  entitled  to

            restitution.   This contention is flatly  contradicted by the

            record.  See  United States  v. Mount, 896  F.2d 612,  614-20
                     ___  _____________     _____

            (1st Cir. 1990)  (describing the evidence  under Count I  and

            affirming the conviction thereunder).   We have examined each

            of Mount's remaining allegations in this regard and find them

            to be without merit. 

                 Affirmed.   
                 _________







                                         -2-