Filed: Nov. 02, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-30230 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus KIBIBI NAYO DAVISON, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 00-CV-2030-B 98-CR-70-1-B - November 1, 2001 Before JONES, SMITH, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Kibibi Nayo Davison (“Davison”), federal prisoner # 15369-075, appeals the district court denial of her 2
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-30230 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus KIBIBI NAYO DAVISON, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 00-CV-2030-B 98-CR-70-1-B - November 1, 2001 Before JONES, SMITH, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Kibibi Nayo Davison (“Davison”), federal prisoner # 15369-075, appeals the district court denial of her 28..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-30230
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
KIBIBI NAYO DAVISON,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 00-CV-2030-B
98-CR-70-1-B
--------------------
November 1, 2001
Before JONES, SMITH, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Kibibi Nayo Davison (“Davison”), federal prisoner
# 15369-075, appeals the district court denial of her 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct her sentence.
Davison was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to interfere with
commerce by robbery and solicitation of robbery.
Davison argues that her trial attorney was ineffective
because he failed to object to the admissibility of certain
evidence and prejudicial hearsay testimony, he did not adequately
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 01-30230
-2-
cross examine Davison’s co-conspirator, and because he failed to
move for a mistrial after prejudicial testimony about Davison
allowing an individual to “cook” crack in her dorm room was
introduced.
Davison also argues that her appellate counsel was
ineffective for failing to argue that the district court erred
when it denied Davison’s request for a new trial, and because he
did not argue that the district court erred when it determined
that Davison was not substantially less culpable then the average
defendant.
We have reviewed the record and the briefs submitted by the
parties and find no error in the district court’s denial of
Davison’s § 2255 claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. See
Strickland v. Washington,
466 U.S. 668, 689-94 (1984); United
States v. Phillips,
210 F.3d 345, 348-350 (5th Cir. 2000).
AFFIRMED.