
USCA1 Opinion

	




                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 97-1913                                       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                                      Appellee,                                          v.                                   PETER E. TARBOX,                                Defendant, Appellant.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE                     [Hon. Morton A. Brody, U.S. District Judge]                                            ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Torruella, Chief Judge,                                           ___________                           Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges.                                            ______________                                 ____________________            Wayne S. Moss on brief for appellant.            _____________            Jay P.  McCloskey,  United States  Attorney, Timothy  Wing and  F.            _________________                            _____________      __        Mark   Terison,  Assistant  United  States  Attorneys,  on  brief  for        ______________        appellee.                                 ____________________                                 November 19, 1997                                 ____________________                      Per  Curiam.     Defendant-appellant  Peter  Tarbox                      ___________            appeals from the  district court's denial of  his suppression            motion.   The sole issue  on appeal is whether  the searching            officers violated  the Fourth Amendment  because they entered            appellant's  home and began the search after receiving notice            that a search warrant had  been issued but before the warrant            was  in  their  physical  possession.    The  district  court            properly  concluded  that  our holding  in  United  States v.                                                        ______________            Bonner,  808  F.2d  864, 869  (1st  Cir.  1986) dictates  the            ______            outcome  in this  case.   Bonner  has not  been overruled  by                                      ______            Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U.S. 927 (1995), as appellant argues.            ______    ________            Therefore, the order  denying appellant's motion  to suppress            and the  judgment of  conviction are affirmed.   See  Loc. R.                                                 ________    ___            27.1.                                         -2-
