USCA1 Opinion

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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,  86 F.3d 1238, 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-