October 11, 1996 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
No. 95-2362
UNITED STATES,
Appellee,
v.
STEVEN J. NOWACZYK,
Defendant, Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
[Hon. Paul J. Barbadoro, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge,
Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
Steven J. Nowaczyk on brief pro se.
Paul M. Gagnon, United States Attorney, and Peter E. Papps, First
Assistant U.S. Attorney, on Motion for Summary Disposition for
appellee.
Per Curiam. After careful review of the record and
briefs, we conclude that this case clearly presents no
substantial issue for review.
We find no error or abuse of discretion in the
revocation of defendant's supervised release. The government
presented adequate evidence of defendant's state convictions,
and defendant did not make any response suggesting that the
convictions were insufficient evidence of his violation of
supervised release. In those circumstances, the district
court cannot be faulted for basing the revocation on the
convictions. See generally United States v. Czajak, 909 F.2d
20, 22 (1st Cir. 1990) (record need only demonstrate that the
district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding
that the evidence "reasonably satisfied" it that the
defendant had in fact violated the law).
The district court also properly rejected defendant's
subsequent motion for arrest of judgment, as defendant failed
to show that the district court "was without jurisdiction of
the offense charged." Fed. R. Crim. P. 34.
We are not persuaded by any of defendant's myriad
arguments about the arrest warrant and supporting affidavit;
detainers; timely hearing; timely appointment of counsel;
ineffective assistance of counsel; effect of state bail on
his state and federal sentencing; advisement for his
underlying sentence; and credit for pre-sentence time served.
-2-
The district court correctly disposed of those arguments, to
the extent that they were raised below. And they present no
grounds for overturning the revocation or sentence, even on
plain error review. See United States v. Chaklader, 987 F.2d
75, 76 (1st Cir. 1993) (absent plain error, an issue not
presented to the district court cannot be raised for the
first time on appeal).
Affirmed. See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.
-3-