Craveiro v. United States ( 1998 )

USCA1 Opinion

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT



                                 ____________________





        No. 96-2127



                               JOSEPH M. CRAVEIRO, JR.,



                                Petitioner, Appellant,



                                          v.



                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,



                                Respondent, Appellee.

                                 ____________________





                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND



                  [Hon. Robert W. Lovegreen, U.S. Magistrate Judge]
_____________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
___________

                           Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
______________



                                 ____________________



            Joseph M. Craveiro on brief pro se.
__________________

            Sheldon  Whitehouse,  United  States  Attorney,  and  Margaret  E.
___________________                                   ____________

        Curran, Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.
______





                                 ____________________



                                   February 3, 1998

                                 ____________________





































                      Per Curiam.   After carefully reviewing  the record
__________



            and the parties' briefs, we  summarily affirm the judgment of



            the district court on the basis of United States v. Estrella,
_____________    ________



            104 F.3d  3 (1st Cir.),  cert.denied, 117 S. Ct.  2494 (1997).
___________



            As  for the  claim  of  ineffective  assistance  of  counsel,



            petitioner  has waived  it by  not  presenting it  in his  28



            U.S.C.   2255 motion.  See Dziurgot v. Luther, 897 F.2d 1222,
___ ________    ______



            1224 (1st Cir. 1990) (per curiam).



                      Affirmed.  See Local Rule 27.1.
________   ___







































































                                         -2-