
USCA1 Opinion

	




        November 2, 1994        [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 94-1339                                  RUSSELL C. CORTESE,                                     Petitioner,                                          v.                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                                     Respondent.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS                     [Hon. Robert E. Keeton, U.S. District Judge]                                             ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                  Cyr, Circuit Judge,                                       _____________                            Bownes, Senior Circuit Judge,                                    ____________________                              and Stahl, Circuit Judge.                                         _____________                                 ____________________            Russell C. Cortese on brief pro se.            __________________            Donald  K. Stern,  United States  Attorney, and  Jeffrey A. Locke,            ________________                                 ________________        Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                      Per Curiam.  After  a careful review of the  record                      __________            and the briefs of the parties, we agree  with the judgment of            the  district court for essentially the reasons stated in its            Memorandum  and  Order,  dated  March   21,  1994.    As  for            appellant's  claim  that  the  government  undercover  agents            sought to purchase five kilograms  of cocaine solely in order            to   trigger   the   ten-year  mandatory   minimum   term  of            imprisonment,  it has  been waived.   In  general, we  do not            consider an  issue  that was  not presented  to the  district            court.  See Isabel v. United States, 980 F.2d 60, 61 n.1 (1st                    ___ ______    _____________            Cir. 1992).                      Affirmed.                      ________
