USCA1 Opinion
March 6, 1996 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 95-1968
DANI LTEIF,
Petitioner, Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent, Appellee.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
[Hon. Raymond J. Pettine, Senior U.S. District Judge] __________________________
____________________
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge ___________
Selya and Cyr, Circuit Judges. ______________
____________________
Dani Lteif on brief pro se. __________
Sheldon Whitehouse, United States Attorney, and Margaret E. ___________________ ____________
Curran and Kenneth P. Madden, Assistant United States Attorneys, on ______ _________________
brief for appellee.
____________________
____________________
Per Curiam. The judgment is affirmed substantially for __________
the reasons recited by the magistrate-judge in his report and
recommendation dated June 9, 1995, subsequently approved by
the district court. We note that a number of claims advanced
by petitioner in this court were not included in his 28
U.S.C. 2255 petition. Some of these were raised for the
first time in his objections to the magistrate-judge's
report; others have been proffered for the first time only on
appeal. As a result, none of these contentions is properly
before us. See, e.g., Paterson-Leitch Co. v. Massachusetts ___ ____ ____________________ _____________
Munic. Wholesale Elec. Co., 840 F.2d 985, 990-91 (1st Cir. ___________________________
1988). Each proves to be without merit in any event.
Affirmed. See Loc. R. 27.1. ____________________________
-2-