September 29, 1995 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
No. 95-1269
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee,
v.
RICHARD B. HUDSON, SR.,
Defendant, Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE
[Hon. Gene Carter, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge,
Selya and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
Richard B. Hudson, Sr. on brief pro se.
Jay P. McCloskey, United States Attorney, and F. Mark Terison,
Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.
Per Curiam. The judgment is affirmed substantially for
the reasons recited by the Magistrate-Judge in his Report and
Recommendation dated December 14, 1994. We add that
defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, even
if properly before us, would necessarily fail on the merits.
Contrary to defendant's suggestion, the record before us
discloses no significant discrepancies between the debriefing
statements, on the one hand, and the trial testimony, on the
other, of the two witnesses in question. And as we had
occasion to observe in our decision on direct appeal, see
United States v. Hudson, 970 F.2d 948, 950-54 (1st Cir. 1992)
(passim), co-defense counsel conducted a diligent cross-
examination of these and all other witnesses.
Affirmed.
-3-