UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                            Before the
                SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
Release No. 37775 / October 2, 1996

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING
File No. 3-9050

------------------------------
                              :
In the Matter of              :
                              :    ORDER MAKING FINDINGS AND
DANIEL D. DIETRICH and        :    IMPOSING REMEDIAL SANCTIONS
ROBERT J. JUDGE               :    BY DEFAULT AGAINST RESPONDENT
                              :    DANIEL D. DIETRICH
------------------------------


     Respondent Daniel D. Dietrich is in default under Rules
155(a) and 220(f) of the  Securities and Exchange Commission's
("Commission") Rules of Practice, 17 C.F.R.  201.155(a),
.220(f) (1996), because he has not answered the Order Instituting
Public Proceedings ("Order") issued on July 26, 1996, which he
received on July 31, 1996.  The Order specifies that the
Respondent may be deemed in default and the proceeding may be
determined against him upon consideration of the allegations in
the Order, which may be deemed to be true, if the Respondent
fails to file an answer within 20 days after service upon him of
the Order. Respondent Dietrich also failed to participate in a
prehearing conference in this matter on September 5, 1996, after
being notified of the date and time, and he failed to respond to
my Order to Show Cause, issued on September 16, 1996.

     Accordingly, I find that the following allegations set out
in the Order are true:-[1]-

     A.   From September 1992 to November 1992, Respondent
          Dietrich was a registered representative of Greenway
          Capital Corporation, a broker-dealer registered with
          the Commission pursuant to Section 15(b)(1) of the
          Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act");

     B.   On December 8, 1993, the United States District Court
          for the Southern District of New York issued a Partial
          Final Judgment of Permanent Injunction by consent
          against Respondent Dietrich enjoining him from further

---------FOOTNOTES----------
     -[1]-     The   findings  herein  are  binding  solely  upon
Respondent  Daniel D. Dietrich and not on any other respondent in
this proceeding.
==========================================START OF PAGE 2======

          violations of Sections 17(a) of the Securities Act of
          1933 and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule
          10b-5 thereunder. SEC v. Aqua Technologies, Inc., 93
          Civ. 8223 (WK) (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 8, 1993).  At that time,
          Respondent Dietrich did not admit any allegations or
          consent to the Commission's demands for disgorgement,
          civil penalties, and prejudgment interest;

     C.   From September 1992 through September 1993, while
          associated with a registered broker-dealer, Respondent
          Dietrich violated the antifraud provisions by selling
          shares of Aqua Technologies, Inc. ("Aqua") common stock
          to public investors through the use of materially false
          and misleading statements and omissions.  Respondent
          Dietrich prepared and sent to prospective investors an
          Aqua Technologies, Inc. Business Plan ("Business
          Plan").  In that document, Respondent Dietrich
          misrepresented that Aqua was the exclusive marketing
          arm of Water Systems Development Corporation in the
          eastern United States and Africa.  The Business Plan
          also misrepresented that Aqua was negotiating the
          acquisition of distribution rights of products
          manufactured by a Minnesota company called Coster
          Engineering.  These statements were false.  In
          addition, Respondent Dietrich failed to disclose that
          the proceeds of the Aqua offering would not be used for
          Aqua's purported business, but instead would be
          diverted to Respondent Dietrich's personal use.  These
          misrepresentations and omissions were material, and
          Respondent Dietrich made them knowingly or with
          reckless disregard for the truth;

     D.   On February 14, 1995, the district court granted the
          Commission's Motion for Summary Judgment as to
          liability against Respondent Dietrich; and

     E.   On January 23, 1996, the district court entered a Final
          Judgment against Respondent Dietrich, which awarded the
          Commission disgorgement, civil penalties, and
          prejudgment interest.

     In view of the foregoing, I find it in the public interest
to sanction Respondent Dietrich pursuant to Sections 15(b) and
19(h) of the Exchange Act.

     I ORDER that Daniel D. Dietrich is barred from association
with any broker or dealer and from association with a member of a
national securities exchange or registered securities
association.
==========================================START OF PAGE 3======

                              ____________________________
                              Carol Fox Foelak
                              Administrative Law Judge