Filed: Apr. 15, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 97-10539 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JAMES DAVID DANIEL, Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:96-CR-388-H-2 - - - - - - - - - - April 10, 1998 Before JOLLY, JONES, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* James David Daniel pleaded guilty to possessing heroin in a federal prison. 18 U.S.C. § 1791(
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 97-10539 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JAMES DAVID DANIEL, Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:96-CR-388-H-2 - - - - - - - - - - April 10, 1998 Before JOLLY, JONES, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* James David Daniel pleaded guilty to possessing heroin in a federal prison. 18 U.S.C. § 1791(a..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-10539
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JAMES DAVID DANIEL,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:96-CR-388-H-2
- - - - - - - - - -
April 10, 1998
Before JOLLY, JONES, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
James David Daniel pleaded guilty to possessing heroin in a
federal prison. 18 U.S.C. § 1791(a)(2). Daniel appeals the 38-
month sentence he received as a result of his plea, arguing:
(1) that defense counsel was ineffective in advising him to agree
to waive his right to raise a claim of ineffective assistance**
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
**
The record reveals that Daniel waived his right to
challenge the technical application of the sentencing guidelines
in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding; he did not waive his right to
raise an ineffectiveness challenge in a § 2255 motion.
No. 97-10539
- 2 -
in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding, and (2) that defense counsel
was ineffective at sentencing. We have reviewed the briefs of
the parties and the record, and we find no reversible error.
AFFIRMED.