November 15, 1995 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
No. 95-1367
MICHAEL E. FERRIS, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs, Appellants,
v.
FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Morris E. Lasker, Senior U.S. District Judge]
Before
Selya, Circuit Judge,
Aldrich, Senior Circuit Judge,
and Cyr, Circuit Judge.
Thomas J. Gleason on brief for appellant.
Harvey M. Forman, Forman & Forman, and Robert O. Berger, III
on joint brief for appellees.
Per Curiam. The plaintiffs, disappointed by the
Per Curiam.
district court's findings of fact and conclusions of law
following a bench trial, see Ferris v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corp., No. 94-10470, slip op. (D. Mass. Mar. 7, 1995), appeal
from the ensuing judgment. The standard of review, though not
insurmountable, is daunting. See Cumpiano v. Banco Santander
P.R., 902 F.2d 148, 152 (1st Cir. 1990) (describing high degree
of deference that must "be paid to the trier's assessment of the
evidence" in a jury-waived trial); Reliance Steel Prods. Co. v.
National Fire Ins. Co., 880 F.2d 575, 576-77 (1st Cir. 1989)
(similar); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a). This standard makes
it clear that an appellate tribunal "ought not to upset findings
of fact or conclusions drawn therefrom unless, on the whole of
the record, [the judges] form a strong, unyielding belief that a
mistake has been made." Cumpiano, 902 F.2d at 152. In other
words, as long as the district court's rendition of the record is
plausible, our inquiry is at an end.
So it is here. We have carefully reviewed the trial
transcript, the record on appeal, and the parties' briefs. We
discern no error, and, given the standard of review, we perceive
no fairly debatable issues demanding extended appellate scrutiny.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment for
substantially the reasons elucidated in the thorough, well-
reasoned opinion below.
We need go no further. The judgment of the district
court is summarily affirmed. See 1st Cir. R. 27.1.
2
Affirmed.
Affirmed
3