USCA1 Opinion
March 16, 1993 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
___________________
No. 92-1576
CHARLES M. MOUNT,
Petitioner, Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent, Appellee.
__________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Rya W. Zobel, U.S. District Judge]
___________________
___________________
Before
Selya, Cyr and Boudin,
Circuit Judges.
______________
___________________
Charles Merrill Mount on brief pro se.
_____________________
A. John Pappalardo, United States Attorney, and Tobin N.
___________________ ________
Harvey, Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.
______
__________________
__________________
Per Curiam. Charles Merrill Mount appeals from a
___________
district court order denying his motion for return of
$18,400. Following his arrest for violation of 18 U.S.C.
2314, those funds were seized from a safety deposit box
maintained by Mount in the District of Columbia. And
following his conviction, those funds were ordered to be paid
in restitution to Goodspeed's, the antiquarian book shop
which had suffered a $20,000 loss as a result of Mount's
crimes. There is ample reason to believe that the $18,400
was the unspent balance of the very funds that had been paid
by Goodspeed's for historical documents that Mount did not
own but had wrongly sold to Goodspeed's.
Mount now argues that all of the historical documents
which he sold to Goodspeed's were stricken from Count I of
the indictment at trial, with the result that Goodspeed's
suffered no actual loss and thus was not entitled to
restitution. This contention is flatly contradicted by the
record. See United States v. Mount, 896 F.2d 612, 614-20
___ _____________ _____
(1st Cir. 1990) (describing the evidence under Count I and
affirming the conviction thereunder). We have examined each
of Mount's remaining allegations in this regard and find them
to be without merit.
Affirmed.
_________
-2-