Court Opinion

ID: 2963917
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:17:23.016834+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:01.058318
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

        March 6, 1996           [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT 

                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1968

                                     DANI LTEIF,

                                Petitioner, Appellant,

                                          v.

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                Respondent, Appellee.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

                [Hon. Raymond J. Pettine, Senior U.S. District Judge]
                                          __________________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

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

                                 ____________________

            Dani Lteif on brief pro se.
            __________
            Sheldon  Whitehouse,  United  States  Attorney,  and  Margaret  E.
            ___________________                                   ____________
        Curran and  Kenneth P. Madden,  Assistant United States  Attorneys, on
        ______      _________________
        brief for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                 Per Curiam.  The  judgment is affirmed substantially for
                 __________

            the reasons recited by the magistrate-judge in his report and

            recommendation dated  June 9, 1995,  subsequently approved by

            the district court.  We note that a number of claims advanced

            by  petitioner  in this  court were  not  included in  his 28

            U.S.C.   2255  petition.  Some of  these were raised for  the

            first  time  in  his  objections  to  the  magistrate-judge's

            report; others have been proffered for the first time only on

            appeal.  As a  result, none of these contentions  is properly

            before us.   See, e.g., Paterson-Leitch  Co. v. Massachusetts
                         ___  ____  ____________________    _____________

            Munic.  Wholesale Elec. Co.,  840 F.2d 985,  990-91 (1st Cir.
            ___________________________

            1988).  Each proves to be without merit in any event.

                 Affirmed.  See Loc. R. 27.1.
                 ____________________________

                                         -2-