
USCA1 Opinion

	




                August 4, 1992                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                                 ____________________        No. 92-1021                                     UNITED STATES,                                      Appellee,                                          v.                                    JULIAN DuPONT,                                Defendant, Appellant.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE                       [Hon. Shane Devine, U.S. District Judge]                                           ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                 Breyer, Chief Judge,                                         ___________                           Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,                                     ____________________                               and Cyr, Circuit Judge.                                        _____________                                 ____________________            Julian DuPont on brief pro se.            _____________            Jeffrey  R. Howard,  United  States  Attorney, and  Jean B.  Weld,            __________________                                  _____________        Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                      Per  Curiam.   On  the record  as developed  in the                      ___________            district court, we agree with the district court's conclusion            that  the notice  sent  was reasonably  calculated to  notify            appellant  of  the   forfeiture  proceeding  and   hence  was            constitutionally adequate.   See  Stateside Machinery Co.  v.                                         ___  _______________________            Alperin, 591 F.2d 234, 240-42 (3rd Cir. 1979)  (service, sent            _______            to party's  last known address, was  reasonably calculated to            apprise  party of action,  and adversary was  not required to            contact party's counsel in an effort to locate the party once            service was returned unclaimed).                      Appellant argues for the  first time on appeal that            in  March 1989 when the  notice was sent,  the government had            actual knowledge  of appellant's new address.   Appellant did            not raise  this argument  below, however,  and hence  can not            raise it for the first time on appeal.  Moreover, the factors            on which  appellant relies for knowledge  -- the government's            failure to  assert  change of  address  without notice  as  a            ground for revocation of  bail and the August 14,  1989 PSR's            notation  of appellant's new address  -- do not  show that in            March  1989  the government  knew  of  appellant's change  of            address.                      Appellant's  motion for  appointment of  counsel is            denied.                      Affirmed.                      ________                                         -2-
