Court Opinion

ID: 2964970
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:33:38.862443+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:44.928789
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 97-1913
         

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                   PETER E. TARBOX,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

                     [Hon. Morton A. Brody, U.S. District Judge]
                                            ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

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

                                 ____________________

            Wayne S. Moss on brief for appellant.
            _____________
            Jay P.  McCloskey,  United States  Attorney, Timothy  Wing and  F.
            _________________                            _____________      __
        Mark   Terison,  Assistant  United  States  Attorneys,  on  brief  for
        ______________
        appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                 November 19, 1997
                                 ____________________

                      Per  Curiam.     Defendant-appellant  Peter  Tarbox
                      ___________

            appeals from the  district court's denial of  his suppression

            motion.   The sole issue  on appeal is whether  the searching

            officers violated  the Fourth Amendment  because they entered

            appellant's  home and began the search after receiving notice

            that a search warrant had  been issued but before the warrant

            was  in  their  physical  possession.    The  district  court

            properly  concluded  that  our holding  in  United  States v.
                                                        ______________

            Bonner,  808  F.2d  864, 869  (1st  Cir.  1986) dictates  the
            ______

            outcome  in this  case.   Bonner  has not  been overruled  by
                                      ______

            Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U.S. 927 (1995), as appellant argues.
            ______    ________

            Therefore, the order  denying appellant's motion  to suppress

            and the  judgment of  conviction are affirmed.   See  Loc. R.
                                                 ________    ___

            27.1.

                                         -2-