
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                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                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-
