Court Opinion

ID: 2965216
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:37:20.355792+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:50.031605
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 97-1842

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                  DANIEL D. TAVARES,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                     [Hon. William G. Young, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                           Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________

                                 ____________________

            Daniel D. Tavares on brief pro se.
            _________________
            Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney, and Michael J. Pelgro,
            _______________                              _________________
        Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                  FEBRUARY 25, 1998
                                 ____________________

                 Per  Curiam.  Pro  se prisoner Daniel  Tavares appeals a
                 ___________   ___  __

            district court order that denied  a motion for new trial that

            he filed on April 14, 1997.1  The motion was properly denied.
                                       1

            The motion was not based  on newly discovered evidence and it

            was filed,  without an extension,  more than two  years after

            the jury found Tavares guilty  of being a felon in possession

            of a  firearm.  See 18 U.S.C.    922(g)(1).  Thus, the motion
                            ___

            was  plainly untimely  under Fed.  R.  Crim. P.  33, and  the

            district court had  no jurisdiction to grant it.   See United
                                                               ___ ______

            States v. DiSanto,  86 F.3d 1238, 1250 n. 12 (1st Cir. 1996).
            ______    _______

            Although  we need  not  reach  the issue,  we  note that  the

            ineffective assistance of  counsel claim that  Tavares argues

            on appeal  is meritless.   The additional points,  raised for

            the first  time in Tavares's  reply brief,  are not  properly

            before us.  

                 Affirmed.  See Local Rule 27.1.
                 ________   ___

                                
            ____________________

               1Tavares's reply brief incorrectly asserts that this
               1
            appeal pertains to another motion for new trial that appears
            as Exhibit D to the government's brief.  However, the record
            indicates that Tavares never filed a notice of appeal from
            the order that denied that motion.

                                         -2-