Filed: Mar. 04, 2004
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 97-30469 (Summary Calendar) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus DAVID HAMPTON, Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (USDC No. 95-CV-4297) - - - - - - - - - - November 25, 1997 Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* David Hampton, federal prisoner #23890-034 I-D-2, appeals from the denial of his
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 97-30469 (Summary Calendar) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus DAVID HAMPTON, Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (USDC No. 95-CV-4297) - - - - - - - - - - November 25, 1997 Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* David Hampton, federal prisoner #23890-034 I-D-2, appeals from the denial of his ..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-30469
(Summary Calendar)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DAVID HAMPTON,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
(USDC No. 95-CV-4297)
- - - - - - - - - -
November 25, 1997
Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
David Hampton, federal prisoner #23890-034 I-D-2, appeals from
the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, correct, or
set aside sentence following this court’s remand as to Hampton’s
ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim.
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. The
district court did not abuse its discretion in not conducting an
evidentiary hearing. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons
adopted by the district court. United States v. Hampton, No. 95-
CV-4297 (E.D. La. Apr. 17, 1997).
AFFIRMED.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.