Filed: Jul. 09, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 96-50017 Conference Calendar _ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus STEVE ELLIS, Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. ER-94-CA-323 - - - - - - - - - - June 27, 1996 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Steve Ellis, #02383-043, appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 96-50017 Conference Calendar _ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus STEVE ELLIS, Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. ER-94-CA-323 - - - - - - - - - - June 27, 1996 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Steve Ellis, #02383-043, appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate h..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 96-50017
Conference Calendar
__________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
STEVE ELLIS,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. ER-94-CA-323
- - - - - - - - - -
June 27, 1996
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Steve Ellis, #02383-043, appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 motion to vacate his sentence, in which he argued that the
district court erred in determining the amount of marijuana
attributable to him for Sentencing Guideline purposes and that
his attorney performed ineffectively by failing to raise this
issue on direct appeal. This court has reviewed the record, the
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 96-50017
-2-
parties’ arguments, and the district court’s findings and
conclusions, and affirms for essentially the reasons cited by the
district court. See Ellis v. United States, No. EP-94-CA-323-H
(W.D. Tex. Nov. 17, 1995).
AFFIRMED.