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                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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-