United States v. Bullins ( 1996 )

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          January 18, 1996      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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