Opinion ID: 196749
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Carreras Appeal

Text: 7 Carreras attempts to resuscitate the claims raised in the second motion to suppress, despite the undisputed fact that he failed to comply with the bar date. See McIntosh v. Antonio, 71 F.3d 29, 35-37 (1st Cir.1995) (filing occurs upon receipt by clerk, not upon mailing, per Fed.R.Civ.P. 5(e)); Fed.R.Crim.P. 49(d) (incorporating civil case filing rule). Nor did Carreras either request an extension of the bar date or invoke Criminal Rule 12(f), which explicitly authorizes the district court to grant relief from waiver for cause shown. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(f); see also United States v. Nunez, 19 F.3d 719, 722-23 (1st Cir.1994) (noting importance of deciding motions to suppress before trial). 8 Given the failure to present the district court with any reason for the waiver, Carreras' claim that the district court abused its discretion, see United States v. Gomez-Benabe, 985 F.2d 607, 611 (1st Cir.1993), by enforcing its scheduling order and imposing waiver, is utterly frivolous, see id. Accordingly, we do not reach the lame arguments--first broached on appeal--for his abuse of discretion claim. Appeal of Sun Pipe Line Co., 831 F.2d 22, 25 (1st Cir.1987) (refusing to find abuse of discretion based on matters never presented to district court), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1055 (1988). 1 9 Carreras also attempts to broach on appeal a Fifth and Sixth Amendment challenge to the jury selection procedures employed below, by arguing that higher income professionals, non-voters, and non-English speaking persons are systematically exempted or excluded from petit jury service in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. We hold this claim to have been forfeited for failure to interpose a proper objection below, United States v. Flores-Rivera, 56 F.3d 319, 326 (1st Cir.1995) (refusing relief absent showing of manifest or clear injustice); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1867(a) (1994); United States v. Pion, 25 F.3d 18 (1st Cir.1994), and substantially foreclosed by our precedent as well. See, e.g., Flores-Rivera, 56 F.3d at 326 (upholding English-language requirement); United States v. Benmuhar, 658 F.2d 14, 19-20 (1st Cir.1981) (finding no systematic exclusion of professionals), cert. denied, 447 U.S. 1117 (1982); see also United States v. Cecil, 836 F.2d 1431, 1448-49 (4th Cir.) (non-voters), cert. denied, 497 U.S. 1205 (1988). 10 Finally, we reject the request to vacate Carreras' sentence and remand to the district court to consider an age-based downward departure, since Carreras failed to request a downward departure before the district court. See United States v. Catucci, 55 F.3d 15, 18 (1st Cir.1995). 2