USCA1 Opinion

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________





        No. 96-2132



                                    UNITED STATES,



                                      Appellee,



                                          v.



                                     EDWIN COLON,



                                Defendant, Appellant.



                                 ____________________





                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS



                   [Hon. Reginald C. Lindsay, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________

                          Boudin and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________



                                 ____________________



            Valeriano  Diviacchi  and  Diviacchi  Law   Office  on  brief  for
            ____________________       _______________________

        appellant.

            Donald   K.  Stern,   United  States   Attorney,  and   Robert  E.
            __________________                                      __________

        Richardson, Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.
        __________





                                 ____________________



                                  September 8, 1997

                                 ____________________











































































































































































                 Per  Curiam.  Appellant Edwin Colon was convicted in the
                 ___________



            District of Massachusetts of being a felon in possession of a



            firearm and of  possession of an  unregistered silencer.   We



            address his two challenges.



                 1.  Jury selection
                 __________________



                 Appellant argues the district court committed reversible



            error  when it allowed  the government to  exercise a seventh



            peremptory  challenge in  violation  of  Rule  24(b)  of  the



            Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.



                 Rule  24(b)  prohibits  granting  additional  peremptory



            challenges  to the government.  New England Enterprises, Inc.
                                            _____________________________



            v. United States, 400 F.2d 58, 68 (1st Cir. 1968).  Thus,  it
            ________________



            was  error for  the  district judge  to  grant an  additional



            challenge to the government.  Yet a reversal  is not in order



            unless the issue was preserved for appeal.  Id.  
                                                        ___



                 In  United States v.  Projansky, 465  F.2d 123  (2d Cir.
                     ___________________________



            1972), the  court explained  what was  required  in order  to



            preserve the issue for appeal.  In that case, the defendants'



            counsel  did object to the government's receipt of additional



            challenges, yet  counsel did  not state  the grounds  for the



            objection or mention Rule 24(b).  Id. at 140.  The court held
                                              ___



            that since counsel had not  alerted the district court to the



            restrictions of  Rule 24(b),  counsel had  not preserved  the



            issue for appeal.  Id.
                               ___











                                         -2-





























                 Similarly,  defendant's  counsel here did not  alert the



            judge to the reason for her objection.  She did not cite Rule



            24(b) or argue  that the court lacked authority  to grant the



            additional challenge.   Instead, she only argued  that it was



            "unfair."    This   is  not  sufficient  under   New  England
                                                             ____________



            Enterprises and Projansky.   The judgment of  conviction will
            ___________     _________



            be affirmed.



                 2.  Sentencing
                 ______________



                 Secondly, appellant argues  the district court erred  in



            finding he "used  or possessed" a firearm in  connection with



            another felony (possession  of cocaine with intent  to sell),



            and so  the court should  not have enhanced his  base offense



            level under U.S.S.G.   2K2.1(b)(5).  



                 The firearm in question--a loaded, .22 caliber revolver-



            -was located in defendant's nightstand in the master bedroom.



            The  district court's conclusion that the loaded revolver was



            kept to protect  the cocaine stored in the  house is reviewed



            for  clear error.   United States  v. Thompson, 32  F.3d 1, 4
                                __________________________



            (1st Cir. 1994).  We find none.  It is reasonable to conclude



            that the  defendant kept  the revolver  in his  nightstand to



            protect his valuables, including  his cocaine, should someone



            break into his home.



                 This court must also determine whether the keeping  of a



            revolver  to protect a supply  of drugs meets the requirement



            of  U.S.S.G.     2K2.1(b)(5)  that  the  firearm be  used  or







                                         -3-





























            possessed  "in  connection with"  a  felony.    Review of  an



            interpretation  of  a   Sentencing  Guideline  is  de   novo.
                                                               _________



            Thompson, 32 F.3d at 4.
            ________



                 In United States v. Brewster, 1 F.3d 51 (1st Cir. 1993),
                    _________________________



            we examined when a firearm is possessed "in  connection with"



            drug trafficking under U.S.S.G.   2K2.1(b)(5).  We held  that



            some  nexus  between  the  firearm and  the  other  felony is



            required, but  that the language  of the Guideline  should be



            interpreted  broadly.    Brewster,  1  F.3d  at  54-55.  "The
                                     ________



            combination   of  firearms  and  drugs  is  common,  and  the



            guideline  encompasses the  many  logical links  which  exist



            between the use of firearms and drugs."  Thompson, 32 F.3d at
                                                     ________



            8.



                 Here, a  logical link exists  between the  storing of  a



            large amount of cocaine for  purposes of sale and the keeping



            of a loaded revolver to protect  those drugs from theft.  The



            district court did not commit error when it  enhanced Colon's



            base offense level pursuant to U.S.S.G.   2K2.1(b)(5).



                 AFFIRMED.
                 _________































                                         -4-