Cortese v. United States

Opinion

USCA1 Opinion

        November 2, 1994        [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

No. 94-1339 

                                 RUSSELL C. CORTESE,

                                     Petitioner,

                                          v.

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                     Respondent.

____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                     [Hon. Robert E. Keeton, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                  Cyr, Circuit Judge,
                                       _____________
                            Bownes, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                    ____________________
                              and Stahl, Circuit Judge.
                                         _____________

                                 ____________________

            Russell C. Cortese on brief pro se.
            __________________
            Donald  K. Stern,  United States  Attorney, and  Jeffrey A. Locke,
            ________________                                 ________________
        Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.

____________________

____________________


Per Curiam.  After  a careful review of the  record
                      __________

            and the briefs of the parties, we agree  with the judgment of

            the  district court for essentially the reasons stated in its

            Memorandum  and  Order,  dated  March   21,  1994.    As  for

            appellant's  claim  that  the  government  undercover  agents

            sought to purchase five kilograms  of cocaine solely in order

            to   trigger   the   ten-year  mandatory   minimum   term  of

            imprisonment,  it has  been waived.   In  general, we  do not

            consider an  issue  that was  not presented  to the  district

            court.  See Isabel v. United States, 980 F.2d 60, 61 n.1 (1st
                    ___ ______    _____________

            Cir. 1992).

                      Affirmed.
                      ________