USCA1 Opinion
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 96-1388
LONNIE BENEFIELD,
Petitioner, Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent, Appellee.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Robert E. Keeton, U.S. District Judge]
___________________
____________________
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge,
___________
Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
______________
____________________
Lonnie Benefield on brief pro se.
________________
Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney, and Michael J. Pelgro,
________________ __________________
Assistant U.S. Attorney, on brief for appellee.
____________________
October 23, 1996
____________________
Per Curiam. After careful review of the briefs and
___________
record, we conclude that the district court properly
dismissed appellant's 2255 petition for the reasons stated
in the order dated July 25, 1995, as amended March 29, 1996.
We add only these comments.
1. Appellant's complaint regarding the lack of stated
reasons for the 20-year sentence was not properly raised in
his 2255 petition, as it was not raised on direct appeal.
See Knight v. United States, 37 F.3d 769, 772-73 (1st Cir.
___ ______ _____________
1994).
2. Appellant's complaints regarding the proceedings on
remand from the direct appeal also did not present grounds
for 2255 relief. The proceedings on remand were limited by
the scope of the direct appeal, and appellant was not
entitled to raise new objections at that stage. See United
___ ______
States v. Connell, 6 F.3d 27, 30 (1st Cir. 1993); see also
______ _______ ________
Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a)(1) & 43(c)(4). Appellant's complaint
about the delay on remand is also without merit. See Fed. R.
___
Crim. P. 35(a)(1) (current version).
3. We do not address the argument raised in
appellant's reply brief that the district court on remand
failed to advise him of his right to appeal under Fed. R.
Crim. P. 32(c)(5). That argument was neither presented below
nor raised here in a timely fashion. See, e.g., Sandstrom v.
___ ____ _________
Chemlawn Corp., 904 F.2d 83, 86 (1st Cir. 1990) (arguments
______________
-2-
not made to the district court or in the opening brief are
waived).
Affirmed. See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.
________ ___
-3-
