Filed: Apr. 07, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 96-20409 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus BRIAN KEITH BABIN, Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-92-CR-156-1 - - - - - - - - - - March 28, 1997 Before JONES, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Brian Keith Babin, #59963-079, appeals the district court’s summary denial of his motion to vaca
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 96-20409 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus BRIAN KEITH BABIN, Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-92-CR-156-1 - - - - - - - - - - March 28, 1997 Before JONES, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Brian Keith Babin, #59963-079, appeals the district court’s summary denial of his motion to vacat..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-20409
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
BRIAN KEITH BABIN,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-92-CR-156-1
- - - - - - - - - -
March 28, 1997
Before JONES, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Brian Keith Babin, #59963-079, appeals the district court’s
summary denial of his motion to vacate, set aside or correct
sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Babin’s claims that the
court lacked jurisdiction over his drug-trafficking offenses
because such offenses did not affect interstate commerce is
without merit. United States v. Owens,
996 F.2d 59, 61 (5th Cir.
1993). His counsel was thus not ineffective in failing to
challenge jurisdiction or in failing to request a special jury
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 96-20409
- 2 -
instruction regarding jurisdiction. Babin’s Double Jeopardy
Clause argument fails both under Fifth Circuit precedent, United
States v. Arreola-Ramos,
60 F.3d 188, 192 (5th Cir. 1995) and
under the intervening case of United States v. Ursery,
116 S. Ct.
2135, 2147-49 (1996).
AFFIRMED.