USCA1 Opinion
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 96-1257
UNITED STATES,
Appellee,
v.
DENNIS L. DUSSAULT,
Defendant, Appellant.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
[Hon. Francis J. Boyle, Senior U.S. District Judge] __________________________
____________________
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________
Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges. ______________
____________________
Edward F. St.Onge on brief for appellant. _________________
Sheldon Whitehouse, United States Attorney, and Andrew J. Reich, __________________ ________________
Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.
____________________
December 30, 1997
____________________
Per Curiam. We have reviewed the submissions by the __________
parties and the record in this case, and we affirm the
judgment of conviction. Appellant Dennis Dussault
("Dussault") contends statements he made to an ATF agent
should not have been admitted into evidence, because 1) he
was never warned of his constitutional rights pursuant to
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), and 2) his counsel __________________
was not present while he made the statements in question.
Neither argument has merit. Miranda applies only when a _______
suspect is subjected to a "custodial interrogation." United ______
States v. Ventura, 85 F.3d 708, 710 (1st Cir. 1996) (citing _________________
Illinois v. Perkins, 496 U.S. 292, 297 (1990)). Under no ____________________
version of the facts could the exchange between Dussault and
the ATF agent be characterized as an "interrogation." For
the same reason, counsel's absence during the initial
exchange between Dussault and the agent did not violate
Dussault's constitutional rights. Oregon v. Bradshaw, 462 ___________________
U.S. 1039, 1044-45 (1983) (counsel's absence during
interrogation violates suspect's constitutional rights if _____________
suspect has not knowingly and intelligently waived right to
counsel); see also Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 286 _________ _____________________
(1991); 18 U.S.C. 3501(d).
Dussault's remaining points on appeal are waived due to
the failure to fully brief those issues. United States v. _________________
Pierro, 32 F.3d 611, 621 (1st Cir. 1994). ______
-2-
Affirmed. Loc. R. 27.1. ________
-3-