February 9, 1993
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT


                              _________________________

          No. 92-1562

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                             GENOVEVO MELENDEZ CARRUCINI,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                              _________________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

                  [Hon. Juan M. Perez-Gimenez, U.S. District Judge]
                                               ___________________

                              _________________________

                                        Before

                        Selya, Cyr and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
                                              ______________

                              _________________________

              Harry Anduze Montano and Guillermo Ramos Luina on brief for
              ____________________     _____________________
          appellant.
             Daniel F. Lopez-Romo, United States Attorney, Jose A. Quiles-
             ____________________                          _______________
          Espinosa,  Senior  Litigation  Counsel,  and  Edwin  O.  Vazquez,
          ________                                      __________________
          Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.

                              _________________________



                              _________________________




















                    Per  Curiam.   We  have  examined  the record  in  this
                    Per  Curiam
                    ___________

          criminal case, taking  the evidence in the  light most flattering

          to the  prosecution, indulging  all reasonable inferences  in its

          favor, and then  determining whether a  rational jury could  find

          guilt  beyond a reasonable doubt.   See United  States v. Boylan,
                                              ___ ______________    ______

          898 F.2d 230, 243 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 111 S.Ct. 139 (1990).
                                        _____ ______

          In approaching this determination, we have considered both direct

          and circumstantial  evidence.    On  that  basis,  we  are  fully

          satisfied  that  the  magistrate  judge's findings  of  fact  are

          supportable and  that the guilty verdict  represents "a plausible

          rendition of the record."  United States  v. Ortiz, 966 F.2d 707,
                                     _____________     _____

          711  (1st Cir. 1002),  cert. denied, ___  S.Ct. ___ (1993).   We,
                                 _____ ______

          therefore, summarily  affirm the  judgment below.   See 1st  Cir.
                                                              ___

          Loc. R. 27.1.

                    For the sake of  completeness, we add that whether  the

          military  authorities complied  with the  procedures limned  by 9

          L.P.R.A.    1044 is not  a material  issue at this  stage of  the

          proceedings;   appellant,  after  all,   was  charged  with,  and

          convicted of,  violating 9 L.P.R. A.   1041, not   1044.  We add,

          moreover, that because appellant failed  to raise any issue below

          as to either the adequacy of  notice or abridgement of his  Sixth

          Amendment  rights, we will not  entertain those claims on appeal.

          See United States v. Slade, 980 F.2d 27 (1st Cir. 1992).1
          ___ _____________    _____



                              
          ____________________

               1At  any rate, we think  that the notice  here was ample and
          appellant's constitutional rights were not infracted.

                                          2














          Affirmed.
          Affirmed.
          ________




















































                                          3