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[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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.
2
Affirmed.
3