USCA1 Opinion
March 23, 1994 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
_________________________
No. 93-1401
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs, Appellees,
v.
NARRAGANSETT INDIAN TRIBE, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellants.
_________________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
[Hon. Raymond J. Pettine, Senior U.S. District Judge] __________________________
_________________________
Before
Selya, Circuit Judge, _____________
Aldrich and Coffin, Senior Circuit Judges. _____________________
_________________________
Charles A. Hobbs, with whom Arlene Violet, Matthew S. Jaffe, ________________ _____________ ________________
and Hobbs, Straus, Dean & Wilder were on brief, for appellants. ____________________________
W. Mark Russo, with whom Jeffrey B. Pine, Attorney General, _____________ ________________
Alan M. Shoer, Special Assistant Attorney General, Elizabeth ______________ _________
Murdock Myers, Suzanne Worrell, and Adler, Pollock & Sheehan were _____________ _______________ ________________________
on brief, for state appellees.
Bruce N. Goodsell on brief for municipal appellees. _________________
Scott Harshbarger, Attorney General (Mass.), Douglas H. __________________ ___________
Wilkins, Assistant Attorney General (Mass.), Michael J. _______ ____________
Carpenter, Attorney General (Me.), and Frankie Sue Del Papa, _________ ______________________
Attorney General (Nev.) on brief for States of Massachusetts,
Maine, and Nevada, amici curiae.
_________________________
_________________________
Per Curiam. This opinion ends a forgotten procedural Per Curiam. __________
skirmish in an enduring legal war. Following the district
court's decision and order of judgment, see State of Rhode Island ___ _____________________
v. Narragansett Tribe of Indians, 816 F. Supp. 796 (D.R.I. 1993), _____________________________
the plaintiffs prosecuted an appeal (docketed in this court as
No. 93-1400). The defendants subsequently filed this cross-
appeal, complaining of (1) a stay entered below on March 8, 1993,
and (2) the district court's ensuing denial of appellants' motion
to withdraw or modify the stay. We consolidated the two appeals.
In the proceedings that followed, appellants herein
mentioned the stay, but, beyond this mere allusion, never
breathed a whisper of the cross-appeal either in the briefs or at
oral argument. That ends the matter: it is well settled that
issues advocated in a perfunctory manner on appeal, unaccompanied
by developed argumentation, are deemed to be abandoned. See ___
United States v. Slade, 980 F.2d 27, 30 (1st Cir. 1992); United _____________ _____ ______
States v. St. Cyr, 977 F.2d 698, 701 (1st Cir. 1992); Ryan v. ______ _______ ____
Royal Ins. Co., 916 F.2d 731, 734 (1st Cir. 1990); United States _______________ _____________
v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1, 17 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 494 U.S. _______ _____ ______
1082 (1990).
We need not linger. Here, we are faced not with the
skeleton of an argument, but with the ghost of one. And in any
event, our opinion in respect to plaintiffs' original appeal,
issued this day, likely renders the instant appeal moot.
For these reasons, we exorcise the phantom cross-appeal
from our midst.
Appeal dismissed. No costs. Appeal dismissed. No costs. ________________ ________
2