United States v. Nowaczyk ( 1996 )

USCA1 Opinion

        October 11, 1996        [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT







                                 ____________________





        No. 95-2362



                                    UNITED STATES,



                                      Appellee,



                                          v.



                                 STEVEN J. NOWACZYK,



                                Defendant, Appellant.





                                 ____________________



                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE



                    [Hon. Paul J. Barbadoro, U.S. District Judge]
___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
___________

                           Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
______________



                                 ____________________



            Steven J. Nowaczyk on brief pro se.
__________________

            Paul M. Gagnon, United States Attorney,  and Peter E. Papps, First
______________                               ______________

        Assistant  U.S.  Attorney,  on  Motion  for  Summary  Disposition  for

        appellee.





                                 ____________________





                                 ____________________





























                 Per  Curiam.   After  careful review  of the  record and
___________



            briefs,  we  conclude  that  this case  clearly  presents  no



            substantial issue for review.



                 We  find  no  error  or  abuse  of  discretion  in   the



            revocation of defendant's supervised release.  The government



            presented adequate evidence of defendant's state convictions,



            and  defendant did not make  any response suggesting that the



            convictions were insufficient  evidence of  his violation  of



            supervised release.    In those  circumstances, the  district



            court  cannot  be faulted  for basing  the revocation  on the



            convictions.  See generally United States v. Czajak, 909 F.2d
_____________ _____________    ______



            20, 22 (1st Cir. 1990) (record need only demonstrate that the



            district  court did  not abuse  its discretion  in concluding



            that  the   evidence  "reasonably  satisfied"  it   that  the



            defendant had in fact violated the law).



                 The  district court  also properly  rejected defendant's



            subsequent motion for arrest of judgment, as defendant failed



            to show  that the district court "was without jurisdiction of



            the offense charged."  Fed. R. Crim. P. 34.



                 We  are  not  persuaded  by any  of  defendant's  myriad



            arguments about the arrest  warrant and supporting affidavit;



            detainers;  timely  hearing; timely  appointment  of counsel;



            ineffective assistance  of counsel;  effect of state  bail on



            his  state   and  federal  sentencing;   advisement  for  his



            underlying sentence; and credit for pre-sentence time served.







                                         -2-



























            The district court correctly  disposed of those arguments, to



            the extent  that they were raised below.  And they present no



            grounds for  overturning the revocation or  sentence, even on



            plain error review.  See United States v. Chaklader, 987 F.2d
___ _____________    _________



            75,  76 (1st  Cir. 1993)  (absent plain  error, an  issue not



            presented  to the  district  court cannot  be raised  for the



            first time on appeal).



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











































































                                         -3-