Filed: May 16, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-50069 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus DEE ANN WEST, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-95-293-2-DB - May 16, 2001 Before DAVIS, JONES, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* West has taken an out-of-time appeal from her 1995 convictions for various drug-related offenses. West contends that the district court viol
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-50069 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus DEE ANN WEST, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-95-293-2-DB - May 16, 2001 Before DAVIS, JONES, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* West has taken an out-of-time appeal from her 1995 convictions for various drug-related offenses. West contends that the district court viola..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-50069
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DEE ANN WEST,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. EP-95-293-2-DB
--------------------
May 16, 2001
Before DAVIS, JONES, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
West has taken an out-of-time appeal from her 1995
convictions for various drug-related offenses. West contends
that the district court violated her rights to due process and to
effective assistance of trial counsel in refusing to authorize
funding of her handwriting and polygraph experts in an amount
greater than the compensation provided under the Criminal Justice
Act, 18 U.S.C. ยง 3006A(e)(3). West has failed to show that the
expert testimony pertained to evidence which was "both critical
to the conviction and subject to varying expert opinion." Yohey
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 00-50069
-2-
v. Collins,
985 F.2d 222, 227 (5th Cir. 1993) (internal quotation
marks omitted). West has also failed to show that the district
court abused its discretion in refusing to continue the trial.
See United States v. Shaw,
920 F.2d 1225, 1230 (5th Cir. 1991).
Previously, we held that we do not have jurisdiction to determine
whether the district court erred in refusing to sever the trial.
See United States v. West,
240 F.3d 456, 462 (5th Cir. 2001).
The judgment is AFFIRMED.