Court Opinion

ID: 2963897
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:17:05.112986+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:47.084856
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          January 18, 1996      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                              _________________________

          No. 95-1717

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                  DARREL C. BULLINS,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

                   [Hon. Steven J. McAuliffe, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Selya, Circuit Judge,
                                       _____________

                            Aldrich, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                     ____________________

                              and Lynch, Circuit Judge.
                                         _____________

                                 ____________________

               Michael A. Goldsmith,  with whom Stephen Hrones and Hrones &
               ____________________             ______________     ________
          Garrity were on brief, for appellant.
          _______
               Jean B.  Weld, Assistant  United States Attorney,  with whom
               _____________
          Paul M. Gagnon,  United States  Attorney, was on  brief, for  the
          ______________
          United States.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                    Per Curiam.   The arguments proffered  by the defendant
                    Per Curiam
                    __________

          on appeal were not made in the district court and are, therefore,

          waived.   See United States v.  Slade, 980 F.2d 27,  30 (1st Cir.
                    ___ _____________     _____

          1992); see also Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(3), 12(f).  And while this
                 ___ ____

          omission  leaves the  record  insufficiently developed  to permit

          definitive review  for plain  error (a deficiency  which, itself,

          precludes relief, see United States v. Barletta, 644 F.2d 50, 54-
                            ___ _____________    ________

          55 (1st  Cir. 1981)),  we see  nothing at  this point  that would

          impel us to grant extraordinary relief on that basis.  See United
                                                                 ___ ______

          States v. Olano, 113 S.Ct. 1770 (1993) (elucidating standard  for
          ______    _____

          plain error).

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

                                          2