[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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,

, 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-