Court Opinion

ID: 2961815
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 20:48:15.481774+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:28.625735
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          February 9, 1993                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                              _________________________          No. 92-1562                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                                      Appellee,                                          v.                             GENOVEVO MELENDEZ CARRUCINI,                                Defendant, Appellant.                              _________________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO                  [Hon. Juan M. Perez-Gimenez, U.S. District Judge]                                               ___________________                              _________________________                                        Before                        Selya, Cyr and Stahl, Circuit Judges.                                              ______________                              _________________________              Harry Anduze Montano and Guillermo Ramos Luina on brief for              ____________________     _____________________          appellant.             Daniel F. Lopez-Romo, United States Attorney, Jose A. Quiles-             ____________________                          _______________          Espinosa,  Senior  Litigation  Counsel,  and  Edwin  O.  Vazquez,          ________                                      __________________          Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.                              _________________________                              _________________________                    Per  Curiam.   We  have  examined  the record  in  this                    Per  Curiam                    ___________          criminal case, taking  the evidence in the  light most flattering          to the  prosecution, indulging  all reasonable inferences  in its          favor, and then  determining whether a  rational jury could  find          guilt  beyond a reasonable doubt.   See United  States v. Boylan,                                              ___ ______________    ______          898 F.2d 230, 243 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 111 S.Ct. 139 (1990).                                        _____ ______          In approaching this determination, we have considered both direct          and circumstantial  evidence.    On  that  basis,  we  are  fully          satisfied  that  the  magistrate  judge's findings  of  fact  are          supportable and  that the guilty verdict  represents "a plausible          rendition of the record."  United States  v. Ortiz, 966 F.2d 707,                                     _____________     _____          711  (1st Cir. 1002),  cert. denied, ___  S.Ct. ___ (1993).   We,                                 _____ ______          therefore, summarily  affirm the  judgment below.   See 1st  Cir.                                                              ___          Loc. R. 27.1.                    For the sake of  completeness, we add that whether  the          military  authorities complied  with the  procedures limned  by 9          L.P.R.A.    1044 is not  a material  issue at this  stage of  the          proceedings;   appellant,  after  all,   was  charged  with,  and          convicted of,  violating 9 L.P.R. A.   1041, not   1044.  We add,          moreover, that because appellant failed  to raise any issue below          as to either the adequacy of  notice or abridgement of his  Sixth          Amendment  rights, we will not  entertain those claims on appeal.          See United States v. Slade, 980 F.2d 27 (1st Cir. 1992).1          ___ _____________    _____                                        ____________________               1At  any rate, we think  that the notice  here was ample and          appellant's constitutional rights were not infracted.                                          2          Affirmed.          Affirmed.          ________                                          3