United States v. Zsofka ( 1995 )

USCA1 Opinion

        October 3, 1995         [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT





                                 ____________________





        No. 95-1289



                                    UNITED STATES,



                                      Appellee,



                                          v.



                                  MATTHEW J. ZSOFKA,



                                Defendant, Appellant.





                                 ____________________



                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE





                   [Hon. Joseph A. DiClerico, U.S. District Judge]
___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Cyr, Boudin and Lynch,

                                   Circuit Judges.
______________



                                 ____________________



            Matthew J. Zsofka on brief pro se.
_________________

            Paul M.  Gagnon, United  States Attorney,  Paul J. Andrews,  Trial
_______________                            _______________

        Attorney, U.S.  Department of  Justice,  New England  Bank Fraud  Task

        Force, and Deborah  M. Smith,  Director, New England  Bank Fraud  Task
_________________

        Force, on brief for appellee.





                                 ____________________





















                                 ____________________











                 Per  Curiam.   The  defendant,  Matthew  J. Zsofka,  was
___________



            convicted of bank fraud, false statements, and conspiracy  in



            an alleged  scheme  to  obtain  mortgages  from  a  federally



            insured bank  by falsely representing that  the borrowers had



            made  20 per cent  cash payments.   18  U.S.C.     371, 1014,



            1344.   Zsofka chose not  to appeal, although  we affirmed on



            the appeal  of a co-conspirator in United  States v. LaCroix,
______________    _______



            28  F.3d  223,  225  (1st Cir.  1994),  which  describes  the



            fraudulent scheme.



                 LaCroix,  Zsofka,  and   another  co-conspirator   filed



            motions  for a new  trial, asserting  the existence  of newly



            discovered  evidence  and   the  withholding  of  exculpatory



            evidence by the government.   In the order now  appealed from



            by Zsofka, the district  judge denied the requests for  a new



            trial in a  thorough and well-reasoned 16-page  decision.  We



            affirm  on  Zsofka's  appeal substantially  for  the  reasons



            stated by the district court.



                 We decline  to consider Zsofka's argument,  made for the



            first time  on appeal,  that transcripts  from the trials  of



            other defendants support  Zsofka's request for  a new  trial.



            Issues  not argued in the district court cannot be raised for



            the first time on appeal.  United States v. Mariano, 963 F.2d
_____________    _______



            1150, 1158 n.9 (1st Cir. 1993).  Since this argument will not



            be considered,  we dismiss as  moot Zsofka's request  that we



            take judicial notice of the transcripts of the other trials.



                 Affirmed.
_________