Court Opinion

ID: 2965050
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:34:34.759973+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:12:28.029452
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 97-1566

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                KEVIN PATRICK GILDEA,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                    [Hon. Richard G. Stearns, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

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

                                 ____________________

            Mark J. Gillis on brief for appellant.
            ______________
            Donald  K. Stern,  United  States  Attorney, and  James  F.  Lang,
            ________________                                  _______________
        Assistant U.S. Attorney, on brief for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                   December 4, 1997
                                 ____________________

                 Per Curiam.    Upon careful  review  of the  briefs  and
                 __________

            record, we perceive no reason  to set aside the revocation of

            probation or the sentence imposed.  The magistrate judge  and

            district court adequately  explained the rulings, and  we add

            only these comments:

                 1.   The findings, including the  finding that appellant

            waived  a  preliminary  hearing  and  also  waived  appointed

            counsel, are adequately supported by the record.  

                 2.   Essentially for the  reasons given by the  district

            court,  the FBI's request  that the probation  officer submit

            the  petition for  revocation at  a particular  time did  not

            invalidate the revocation.

                 3.   None of  the issues  raised in  appellant's pro  se

            supplemental brief  present grounds  for reversal  here.   We

            decline  to   consider  his  challenges  to   his  underlying

            conviction and sentence.

                 Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.
                 ________   ___

                                         -2-