Filed: Feb. 14, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 95-10785 Conference Calendar _ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus REGGIE PAUL STEINMARK, also known as Reggie Stein, Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:95-CV-389-A - - - - - - - - - - April 17, 1996 Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Reggie Paul Steinmark appeals from the district court's de
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 95-10785 Conference Calendar _ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus REGGIE PAUL STEINMARK, also known as Reggie Stein, Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:95-CV-389-A - - - - - - - - - - April 17, 1996 Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Reggie Paul Steinmark appeals from the district court's den..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 95-10785
Conference Calendar
__________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
REGGIE PAUL STEINMARK, also
known as Reggie Stein,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:95-CV-389-A
- - - - - - - - - -
April 17, 1996
Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Reggie Paul Steinmark appeals from the district court's
denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. He argues that the
district court erred by basing his sentence upon the total amount
of the loss involved in the conspiracy and that he received
ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to
raise this argument before the district court. We have reviewed
the record and the district court's opinion and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, the decision of the district
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 95-10785
-2-
court is AFFIRMED for essentially the reasons stated by the
district court.
AFFIRMED.