
USCA1 Opinion

	




        March 6, 1996           [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                  ____________________        No. 95-1968                                     DANI LTEIF,                                Petitioner, Appellant,                                          v.                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                                Respondent, Appellee.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND                [Hon. Raymond J. Pettine, Senior U.S. District Judge]                                          __________________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Torruella, Chief Judge                                           ___________                            Selya and Cyr, Circuit Judges.                                           ______________                                 ____________________            Dani Lteif on brief pro se.            __________            Sheldon  Whitehouse,  United  States  Attorney,  and  Margaret  E.            ___________________                                   ____________        Curran and  Kenneth P. Madden,  Assistant United States  Attorneys, on        ______      _________________        brief for appellee.                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                 Per Curiam.  The  judgment is affirmed substantially for                 __________            the reasons recited by the magistrate-judge in his report and            recommendation dated  June 9, 1995,  subsequently approved by            the district court.  We note that a number of claims advanced            by  petitioner  in this  court were  not  included in  his 28            U.S.C.   2255  petition.  Some of  these were raised for  the            first  time  in  his  objections  to  the  magistrate-judge's            report; others have been proffered for the first time only on            appeal.  As a  result, none of these contentions  is properly            before us.   See, e.g., Paterson-Leitch  Co. v. Massachusetts                         ___  ____  ____________________    _____________            Munic.  Wholesale Elec. Co.,  840 F.2d 985,  990-91 (1st Cir.            ___________________________            1988).  Each proves to be without merit in any event.                 Affirmed.  See Loc. R. 27.1.                 ____________________________                                         -2-
