
USCA1 Opinion

	




          June 21, 1993         [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            United States Court of Appeals                                For the First Circuit                                                                                     _________________________          No. 92-2397                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                                      Appellee,                                          v.                                ALLAN W. ST. GERMAINE,                             a/k/a ALLAN W. ST. GERMAIN,                                Defendant, Appellant.                                                                                     _________________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE                       [Hon. Gene Carter, U.S. District Judge]                                          ___________________                                                                                     _________________________                                        Before                                Selya, Cyr and Boudin,                                   Circuit Judges.                                   ______________                                                                                     _________________________               Peter Clifford for appellant.               ______________               Nicholas  M. Gess,  Assistant United  States  Attorney, with               _________________          whom  Jay P. McCloskey, United States Attorney, was on brief, for                ________________          appellee.                                                                                     _________________________                                                                                     _________________________                    Per Curiam.  Having  carefully reviewed the record                    Per Curiam                    __________               of  the proceedings below, we conclude, without serious               question,   that,  before   the  district   court,  the               appellant   withdrew  any  objection  to  the  proposed               determination that  he should be sentenced  as an armed               career   criminal  under   18   U.S.C.       922(g)(1),               924(e)(1).  Because that issue was not preserved below,               we  will not address it here.  See, e.g., United States                                              ___  ____  _____________               v. Dietz, 950  F.2d 50,  55 (1st Cir.  1991) ("We  have                  _____               repeatedly  ruled, in connection  with sentencing as in               other contexts, that arguments not seasonably addressed               to the trial court may not be raised for the first time               in an  appellate venue.")  (collecting cases).   In any               event, we are satisfied that appellant's prior criminal               record brought him firmly within the ambit of the Armed               Career  Criminal  Act.   See,  e.g.,  Taylor v.  United                                        ___   ____   ______     ______               States,  495 U.S.  575,  600 (1990);  United States  v.               ______                                _____________               Anderson, 921 F.2d 335, 339-40 (1st Cir. 1990).               ________                    We have examined appellant's remaining contentions               and find them  meritless.  Consequently, we  need go no               further.                                          2               Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.               ________   ___                                          3
