United States v. DuPont

Opinion

USCA1 Opinion

August 4, 1992
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

____________________

No. 92-1021 

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                    JULIAN DuPONT,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

[Hon. Shane Devine, U.S. District Judge]
                                           ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                 Breyer, Chief Judge,
                                         ___________
                           Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                     ____________________
                               and Cyr, Circuit Judge.
                                        _____________

                                 ____________________

            Julian DuPont on brief pro se.
            _____________
            Jeffrey  R. Howard,  United  States  Attorney, and  Jean B.  Weld,
            __________________                                  _____________
        Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.

____________________

____________________

Per  Curiam.   On  the record  as developed  in the
                      ___________

            district court, we agree with the district court's conclusion

            that  the notice  sent  was reasonably  calculated to  notify

            appellant  of  the   forfeiture  proceeding  and   hence  was

            constitutionally adequate.   See  Stateside Machinery Co.  v.
                                         ___  _______________________

            Alperin, 591 F.2d 234, 240-42 (3rd Cir. 1979)  (service, sent
            _______

            to party's  last known address, was  reasonably calculated to

            apprise  party of action,  and adversary was  not required to

            contact party's counsel in an effort to locate the party once

            service was returned unclaimed).

                      Appellant argues for the  first time on appeal that

            in  March 1989 when the  notice was sent,  the government had

            actual knowledge  of appellant's new address.   Appellant did

            not raise  this argument  below, however,  and hence  can not

            raise it for the first time on appeal.  Moreover, the factors

            on which  appellant relies for knowledge  -- the government's

            failure to  assert  change of  address  without notice  as  a

            ground for revocation of  bail and the August 14,  1989 PSR's

            notation  of appellant's new address  -- do not  show that in

            March  1989  the government  knew  of  appellant's change  of

            address.

                      Appellant's  motion for  appointment of  counsel is

            denied.

                      Affirmed.
                      ________

-2-