Filed: Nov. 08, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 96-40340 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus RONALD LEE LEWIS, Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. M-94-CV-223 - - - - - - - - - - October 29, 1996 Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Ronald Lee Lewis appeals the district court’s denial of his motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 96-40340 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus RONALD LEE LEWIS, Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. M-94-CV-223 - - - - - - - - - - October 29, 1996 Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Ronald Lee Lewis appeals the district court’s denial of his motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. ..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-40340
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RONALD LEE LEWIS,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. M-94-CV-223
- - - - - - - - - -
October 29, 1996
Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Ronald Lee Lewis appeals the district court’s denial of his
motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Lewis argues that the
indictment to which he pleaded guilty did not state an offense
under 18 U.S.C. § 531(a) because the indictment failed to allege
that Lewis intended to defraud someone other than the security
issuer. Assuming, arguendo, that such is an essential element of
the offense, the indictment was not constitutionally insufficient
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule
47.5.4.
No. 96-40340
- 2 -
under the maximum-liberality analysis espoused in United States
v. Fitzgerald,
89 F.3d 218, 221-22 (5th Cir. 1996). Accordingly,
we AFFIRM the district court’s denial of Lewis’s motion. Lewis’s
motions to expedite, to amend his brief, and to view the sealed
sentencing recommendation all are DENIED.