
USCA1 Opinion

	




                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 97-1842                                    UNITED STATES,                                      Appellee,                                          v.                                  DANIEL D. TAVARES,                                Defendant, Appellant.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS                     [Hon. William G. Young, U.S. District Judge]                                             ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Torruella, Chief Judge,                                           ___________                           Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges.                                            ______________                                 ____________________            Daniel D. Tavares on brief pro se.            _________________            Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney, and Michael J. Pelgro,            _______________                              _________________        Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.                                 ____________________                                  FEBRUARY 25, 1998                                 ____________________                 Per  Curiam.  Pro  se prisoner Daniel  Tavares appeals a                 ___________   ___  __            district court order that denied  a motion for new trial that            he filed on April 14, 1997.1  The motion was properly denied.                                       1            The motion was not based  on newly discovered evidence and it            was filed,  without an extension,  more than two  years after            the jury found Tavares guilty  of being a felon in possession            of a  firearm.  See 18 U.S.C.    922(g)(1).  Thus, the motion                            ___            was  plainly untimely  under Fed.  R.  Crim. P.  33, and  the            district court had  no jurisdiction to grant it.   See United                                                               ___ ______            States v. DiSanto,  86 F.3d 1238, 1250 n. 12 (1st Cir. 1996).            ______    _______            Although  we need  not  reach  the issue,  we  note that  the            ineffective assistance of  counsel claim that  Tavares argues            on appeal  is meritless.   The additional points,  raised for            the first  time in Tavares's  reply brief,  are not  properly            before us.                   Affirmed.  See Local Rule 27.1.                 ________   ___                                            ____________________               1Tavares's reply brief incorrectly asserts that this               1            appeal pertains to another motion for new trial that appears            as Exhibit D to the government's brief.  However, the record            indicates that Tavares never filed a notice of appeal from            the order that denied that motion.                                         -2-
