[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
No. 97-1842
UNITED STATES,
Appellee,
v.
DANIEL D. TAVARES,
Defendant, Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. William G. Young, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge,
Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
Daniel D. Tavares on brief pro se.
Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney, and Michael J. Pelgro,
Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.
FEBRUARY 25, 1998
Per Curiam. Pro se prisoner Daniel Tavares appeals a
district court order that denied a motion for new trial that
he filed on April 14, 1997.1 The motion was properly denied.
1
The motion was not based on newly discovered evidence and it
was filed, without an extension, more than two years after
the jury found Tavares guilty of being a felon in possession
of a firearm. See 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). Thus, the motion
was plainly untimely under Fed. R. Crim. P. 33, and the
district court had no jurisdiction to grant it. See United
States v. DiSanto, 86 F.3d 1238, 1250 n. 12 (1st Cir. 1996).
Although we need not reach the issue, we note that the
ineffective assistance of counsel claim that Tavares argues
on appeal is meritless. The additional points, raised for
the first time in Tavares's reply brief, are not properly
before us.
Affirmed. See Local Rule 27.1.
1Tavares's reply brief incorrectly asserts that this
1
appeal pertains to another motion for new trial that appears
as Exhibit D to the government's brief. However, the record
indicates that Tavares never filed a notice of appeal from
the order that denied that motion.
-2-