United States v. Dussault ( 1997 )

USCA1 Opinion

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________





        No. 96-1257





                                    UNITED STATES,



                                      Appellee,



                                          v.



                                 DENNIS L. DUSSAULT,



                                Defendant, Appellant.



                                 ____________________





                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND



                 [Hon. Francis J. Boyle, Senior U.S. District Judge]
__________________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
___________

                           Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
______________



                                 ____________________



            Edward F. St.Onge on brief for appellant.
_________________

            Sheldon Whitehouse, United States Attorney,  and Andrew J.  Reich,
__________________                               ________________

        Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.





                                 ____________________



                                  December 30, 1997

                                 ____________________



































                 Per Curiam.   We  have reviewed the  submissions by  the
__________



            parties  and the  record  in  this case,  and  we affirm  the



            judgment   of   conviction.      Appellant  Dennis   Dussault



            ("Dussault")  contends statements  he made  to  an ATF  agent



            should not  have been admitted  into evidence, because  1) he



            was never  warned of  his constitutional  rights pursuant  to



            Miranda v. Arizona,  384 U.S. 436 (1966), and  2) his counsel
__________________



            was  not present  while he  made the statements  in question.



            Neither  argument  has merit.   Miranda  applies only  when a
_______



            suspect  is subjected to a "custodial interrogation."  United
______



            States v. Ventura,  85 F.3d 708, 710 (1st  Cir. 1996) (citing
_________________



            Illinois v.  Perkins, 496  U.S. 292, 297  (1990)).   Under no
____________________



            version of the facts could  the exchange between Dussault and



            the ATF  agent be characterized  as an "interrogation."   For



            the  same  reason,  counsel's   absence  during  the  initial



            exchange  between  Dussault  and the  agent  did  not violate



            Dussault's  constitutional rights.   Oregon v.  Bradshaw, 462
___________________



            U.S.   1039,   1044-45  (1983)   (counsel's   absence  during



            interrogation  violates  suspect's constitutional  rights  if
_____________



            suspect has not  knowingly and intelligently waived  right to



            counsel); see  also Arizona v. Fulminante, 499  U.S. 279, 286
_________ _____________________



            (1991); 18 U.S.C.   3501(d).



                 Dussault's  remaining points on appeal are waived due to



            the failure  to fully brief  those issues.  United  States v.
_________________



            Pierro, 32 F.3d 611, 621 (1st Cir. 1994).
______







                                         -2-



























                 Affirmed.  Loc. R. 27.1.
________







































































































                                         -3-