United States v. Harvey

Opinion

USCA1 Opinion

November 16, 1994     [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                              _________________________

          No. 93-2332

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                    JON K. HARVEY,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                              _________________________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

                    [Hon. Ronald R. Lagueux, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                              _________________________

Before

                        Selya, Cyr, and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
                                               ______________

                              _________________________

Scott A. Lutes for appellant.
               ______________
               Anthony C.  DiGioia, Assistant United  States Attorney, with
               ___________________
          whom Sheldon  Whitehouse, United  States Attorney, was  on brief,
               ___________________
          for the United States.

                              _________________________

_________________________



Per Curiam.   Defendant's assignments of  error in this
                    Per Curiam.
                    __________

          case  are utterly  without  merit.   The  objection to  the  jury

          instruction was not properly preserved.  See Fed.  R. Crim. P. 30
                                                   ___

          (requiring that objections to the charge be taken after the judge
                                                            _____

          instructs  the jury but  before the jury  retires to deliberate).
                                   ______

          In any event, we discern no  meaningful error in the charge.  The

          objection to the enhancement of the defendant's offense level for

          obstruction of  justice, U.S.S.G.  3C1.1, is  baseless, given the

          utter implausibility  of the defendant's trial  testimony and the

          facts of record.  See, e.g.,  United States v. Aymelek, 926  F.2d
                            ___  ____   _____________    _______

          64 (1st Cir. 1991).  Accordingly, the judgment below is summarily

          affirmed.  See Loc. R. 27.1.
                     ___

Affirmed.
          Affirmed.
          ________

2