United States v. Segeada, 95-40430 (1995)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Number: 95-40430
Visitors: 46
Filed: Nov. 13, 1995
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 95-40430 Summary Calendar _ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ROBERT EARL SEGEADA, Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:94-CR-119 - - - - - - - - - - November 30, 1995 Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Robert Earl Segeada appeals his conviction for being a felon in the unlawful possession
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 95-40430 Summary Calendar _ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ROBERT EARL SEGEADA, Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:94-CR-119 - - - - - - - - - - November 30, 1995 Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Robert Earl Segeada appeals his conviction for being a felon in the unlawful possession ..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 95-40430
Summary Calendar
__________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ROBERT EARL SEGEADA,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:94-CR-119
- - - - - - - - - -
November 30, 1995
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Robert Earl Segeada appeals his conviction for being a felon
in the unlawful possession in a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(1). Segeada maintains that the district court
erroneously refused to give a requested jury instruction and that
§ 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional. Our review of the briefs and
record reveals no reversible error; we AFFIRM.
*
Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions
that have no precedential value and merely decide particular
cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes
needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal
profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published.
Source: CourtListener