
USCA1 Opinion

	




          December 14, 1992     [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                              _________________________          No. 92-1586                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                                      Appellee,                                          v.                                   JOSEPH GULLITY,                                Defendant, Appellant.                               ________________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND                     [Hon. Ernest C. Torres, U.S. District Judge]                                             ___________________                              _________________________                                        Before                                Selya, Circuit Judge,                                       _____________                            Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge,                                    ____________________                              and Stahl, Circuit Judge.                                         _____________                              _________________________               Dana A. Curhan for appellant.               ______________               Lincoln  C. Almond,  United States  Attorney, and  Gerard B.               __________________                                 _________          Sullivan,  Assistant   United  States  Attorney,   on  brief  for          ________          appellee.                              _________________________                              _________________________                    Per  Curiam.  Defendant-appellant Joseph Gullity, a/k/a                    Per  Curiam                    ___________          Feme Adedotun, was charged with  possessing heroin with intent to          distribute the  drug, 21 U.S.C.    841(a)(1),  and conspiring  to          possess heroin with an intent to distribute it.  21 U.S.C.   846.          A  jury found him  guilty on both  counts.  Gullity  appeals.  We          affirm.                    Gullity's appeal advances only a solitary assignment of          error:   "Whether the evidence was sufficient, when viewed in the          light most favorable to the government, to establish (a) that the          defendant possessed  the contraband found in the  vicinity of the          car  in  which  he  had  been  a   passenger,  and  (b)  that  he          participated   in  a   conspiracy   with  codefendant   Akinola."          Appellant's  Brief  at 1.    However,  Gullity  never  moved  for          judgment of acquittal in the district court and, therefore, never          preserved  this issue  for appeal.   It  is firmly  settled that,          under such circumstances, "the  defendant forfeits the benefit of          the customary standard  of review, thereby negating any  claim of          evidentiary insufficiency  unless affirming the  conviction would          work  a 'clear and gross  injustice.'"  United  States v. Castro-                                                  ______________    _______          Lara,  970  F.2d 976,  980 n.2  (1st  Cir. 1992),  quoting United          ____                                               _______ ______          States  v. Cheung,  836 F.2d  729, 730  n.1 (1st Cir.  1988) (per          ______     ______          curiam).   Having carefully reviewed  the parties' briefs and the          trial transcript, we see no hint of injustice here.  Indeed, even          under the ordinary standard  of review applicable to sufficiency-          of-the-evidence  challenges, see, e.g.,  United States  v. Maraj,                                       ___  ____   _____________     _____          947 F.2d 520, 522-23 (1st  Cir. 1991), we have no doubt  but that                                          2          the evidence would be judged sufficient to convict.                      We need go no further.  Because it clearly appears that          this appeal presents no substantial question, we summarily affirm          the judgment below.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.                               ___          Affirmed.          Affirmed          ________                                          3
