Court Opinion

ID: 2964365
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:24:37.614579+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:54.675435
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 96-1388

                                  LONNIE BENEFIELD,

                                Petitioner, Appellant,

                                          v.

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                Respondent, Appellee.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                     [Hon. Robert E. Keeton, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

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

                                 ____________________

            Lonnie Benefield on brief pro se.
            ________________
            Donald K.  Stern, United  States Attorney, and Michael  J. Pelgro,
            ________________                               __________________
        Assistant U.S. Attorney, on brief for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                   October 23, 1996
                                 ____________________

                 Per  Curiam.   After  careful review  of the  briefs and
                 ___________

            record,   we  conclude  that   the  district  court  properly

            dismissed appellant's   2255  petition for the reasons stated

            in the order dated July 25, 1995, as amended March  29, 1996.

            We add only these comments.

                 1.   Appellant's complaint regarding  the lack of stated

            reasons  for the 20-year sentence  was not properly raised in

            his    2255 petition, as it was  not raised on direct appeal.

            See  Knight v. United States,  37 F.3d 769,  772-73 (1st Cir.
            ___  ______    _____________

            1994). 

                 2.   Appellant's complaints regarding the proceedings on

            remand from  the direct appeal  also did not  present grounds

            for   2255 relief.  The proceedings on remand were limited by

            the  scope  of  the  direct appeal,  and  appellant  was  not

            entitled to raise new  objections at that stage.   See United
                                                               ___ ______

            States v. Connell,  6 F.3d 27, 30  (1st Cir. 1993);  see also
            ______    _______                                    ________

            Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a)(1) & 43(c)(4).   Appellant's complaint

            about the delay on remand is also without merit.  See Fed. R.
                                                              ___

            Crim. P. 35(a)(1) (current version).

                 3.   We   do  not   address  the   argument  raised   in

            appellant's  reply brief  that the  district court  on remand

            failed to  advise him of  his right  to appeal under  Fed. R.

            Crim. P. 32(c)(5).  That argument was neither presented below

            nor raised here in a timely fashion.  See, e.g., Sandstrom v.
                                                  ___  ____  _________

            Chemlawn Corp., 904  F.2d 83, 86  (1st Cir. 1990)  (arguments
            ______________

                                         -2-

            not made  to the district  court or in the  opening brief are

            waived). 

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

                                         -3-