United States v. Melendez Carrucini

Opinion

February 9, 1993 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

No. 92-1562

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appellee,

v.

GENOVEVO MELENDEZ CARRUCINI,

Defendant, Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

[Hon. Juan M. Perez-Gimenez, U.S. District Judge]

Before

Selya, Cyr and Stahl, Circuit Judges.

Harry Anduze Montano and Guillermo Ramos Luina on brief for

appellant. Daniel F. Lopez-Romo, United States Attorney, Jose A. Quiles-

Espinosa, Senior Litigation Counsel, and Edwin O. Vazquez,

Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.

Per Curiam. We have examined the record in this Per Curiam

criminal case, taking the evidence in the light most flattering

to the prosecution, indulging all reasonable inferences in its

favor, and then determining whether a rational jury could find

guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v. Boylan,

898 F.2d 230, 243 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 111 S.Ct. 139 (1990).

In approaching this determination, we have considered both direct

and circumstantial evidence. On that basis, we are fully

satisfied that the magistrate judge's findings of fact are

supportable and that the guilty verdict represents "a plausible

rendition of the record." United States v. Ortiz, 966 F.2d 707,

711 (1st Cir. 1002), cert. denied, S.Ct. (1993). We,

therefore, summarily affirm the judgment below. See 1st Cir.

Loc. R. 27.1.

For the sake of completeness, we add that whether the

military authorities complied with the procedures limned by 9

L.P.R.A. 1044 is not a material issue at this stage of the

proceedings; appellant, after all, was charged with, and

convicted of, violating 9 L.P.R. A. 1041, not 1044. We add,

moreover, that because appellant failed to raise any issue below

as to either the adequacy of notice or abridgement of his Sixth

Amendment rights, we will not entertain those claims on appeal.

See United States v. Slade, 980 F.2d 27 (1st Cir. 1992).1

1At any rate, we think that the notice here was ample and appellant's constitutional rights were not infracted.

Affirmed.