
USCA1 Opinion

	




          November 16, 1994     [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                              _________________________          No. 93-2332                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                                      Appellee,                                          v.                                    JON K. HARVEY,                                Defendant, Appellant.                              _________________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND                    [Hon. Ronald R. Lagueux, U.S. District Judge]                                             ___________________                              _________________________                                        Before                        Selya, Cyr, and Stahl, Circuit Judges.                                               ______________                              _________________________               Scott A. Lutes for appellant.               ______________               Anthony C.  DiGioia, Assistant United  States Attorney, with               ___________________          whom Sheldon  Whitehouse, United  States Attorney, was  on brief,               ___________________          for the United States.                              _________________________                              _________________________                    Per Curiam.   Defendant's assignments of  error in this                    Per Curiam.                    __________          case  are utterly  without  merit.   The  objection to  the  jury          instruction was not properly preserved.  See Fed.  R. Crim. P. 30                                                   ___          (requiring that objections to the charge be taken after the judge                                                            _____          instructs  the jury but  before the jury  retires to deliberate).                                   ______          In any event, we discern no  meaningful error in the charge.  The          objection to the enhancement of the defendant's offense level for          obstruction of  justice, U.S.S.G.  3C1.1, is  baseless, given the          utter implausibility  of the defendant's trial  testimony and the          facts of record.  See, e.g.,  United States v. Aymelek, 926  F.2d                            ___  ____   _____________    _______          64 (1st Cir. 1991).  Accordingly, the judgment below is summarily          affirmed.  See Loc. R. 27.1.                     ___          Affirmed.          Affirmed.          ________                                          2
