Sanchez-Valdes v. Baco

USCA1 Opinion

          August 11, 1993       [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]


                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ___________________


          No. 93-1332


            


                                JESUS SANCHEZ-VALDES,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                               ALBERTO O. BACO, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                  __________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

                   [Hon. Gilberto Gierbolini, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                 ___________________

                                        Before

                                Cyr, Boudin and Stahl,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ___________________

               Hector  Rivera  Cruz,  Secretary of  Justice,  Antonio  Fiol
               ____________________                           _____________
          Matta, Director, Federal Litigation Division, Rosalinda Pesquera,
          _____                                         __________________
          Victor  E.  Baez,  and  Sigfredo Rodriguez  Isaac,  on  brief for
          ________________        _________________________
          appellant.
               Carlos Lugo Fiol,  Acting Solicitor  General, Department  of
               ________________
          Justice, on brief for appellees.



                                  __________________

                                  __________________















                 Per Curiam.   The  district court dismissed  this action
                 __________

            after  determining that  plaintiff had  orally agreed  upon a

            settlement.  Plaintiff has appealed.

                 Plaintiff's brief does  not clearly explain  plaintiff's

            challenge.   If plaintiff's argument is that the terms of the

            settlement as  represented by  defendants were not  the terms

            the   parties  actually   agreed  upon   at  the   settlement

            conference, we conclude  plaintiff has waived that  argument.

            Plaintiff neither  timely  opposed defendants'  June 3,  1992

            motion (which asked the court, among other things, to enforce

            the settlement  agreement  attached to  defendants'  motion),

            requested an evidentiary  hearing, nor sought reconsideration

            of the court's June  22, 1992 order which concluded  that the

            agreed upon settlement  terms were as stated  by defendants. 

            If plaintiff's argument is that counsel was not authorized to

            settle  the  case, this  argument,  too, has  been  waived by

            plaintiff's  failure  to  present  it  below.    In  view  of

            plaintiff's silence below,  coupled with his  vaguely phrased

            appellate brief, we see no basis  for disturbing the district

            court's judgment.

                 Affirmed. 
                 ________











                                         -2-