Lteif v. United States ( 1996 )

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        March 6, 1996           [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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-