
USCA1 Opinion

	




                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 96-2127                               JOSEPH M. CRAVEIRO, JR.,                                Petitioner, Appellant,                                          v.                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                                Respondent, Appellee.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND                  [Hon. Robert W. Lovegreen, U.S. Magistrate Judge]                                             _____________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Torruella, Chief Judge,                                           ___________                           Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges.                                            ______________                                 ____________________            Joseph M. Craveiro on brief pro se.            __________________            Sheldon  Whitehouse,  United  States  Attorney,  and  Margaret  E.            ___________________                                   ____________        Curran, Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.        ______                                 ____________________                                   February 3, 1998                                 ____________________                      Per Curiam.   After carefully reviewing  the record                      __________            and the parties' briefs, we  summarily affirm the judgment of            the district court on the basis of United States v. Estrella,                                               _____________    ________            104 F.3d  3 (1st Cir.),  cert.denied, 117 S.Ct.  2494 (1997).                                     ___________            As  for the  claim  of  ineffective  assistance  of  counsel,            petitioner  has waived  it by  not  presenting it  in his  28            U.S.C.   2255 motion.  See Dziurgot v. Luther, 897 F.2d 1222,                                   ___ ________    ______            1224 (1st Cir. 1990) (per curiam).                      Affirmed.  See Local Rule 27.1.                      ________   ___                                         -2-
