US v. Bullins
Case Date: 01/22/1996
Court: United States Court of Appeals
Docket No: 95-1717
|
January 18, 1996 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT _________________________ No. 95-1717 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. DARREL C. BULLINS,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 |