United States v. Hill

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 13, 2001
Docket99-51179
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Hill (United States v. Hill) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Hill, (5th Cir. 2001).

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-51179 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

LEONARD HILL, also known as Nootie,

Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. SA-97-CV-269 -------------------- February 8, 2001

Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Leonard Hill, prisoner number 70325-080, appeals the

district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate

sentence. Hill has failed to show that he is entitled to relief

based on his counsel’s alleged ineffective assistance, as Hill

has failed to show that his counsel’s performance was deficient.

See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). Hill has also

failed to show that the evidence was insufficient to support his

plea. The factual basis found in the plea agreement, the truth

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 99-51179 -2-

and accuracy of which was admitted by Hill when he was under

oath, established that Hill had performed acts that constituted

all of the elements of a drug conspiracy. See United States v.

Martinez, 190 F.3d 673, 676 (5th Cir. 1999); United States v.

Fuller, 769 F.2d 1095, 1099 (5th Cir. 1985).

Hill argues several other issues in his opening and reply

briefs. Because a certificate of appealability was not granted

on these issues, we will not consider them. See Lackey v.

Johnson, 116 F.3d 149, 151-52 (5th Cir. 1997). The judgment of

the district court is AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Lackey v. Johnson
116 F.3d 149 (Fifth Circuit, 1997)
United States v. Martinez
190 F.3d 673 (Fifth Circuit, 1999)
Strickland v. Washington
466 U.S. 668 (Supreme Court, 1984)
United States v. Charles Herbert Fuller
769 F.2d 1095 (Fifth Circuit, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Hill, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-hill-ca5-2001.