IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-11326
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MARK LINNEAR HAYS,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:95-CR-141-D
- - - - - - - - - -
April 16, 1999
Before JOLLY, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Mark Linnear Hays appeals his convictions and sentences for
conspiracy, obstructing commerce by robbery, using and carrying a
firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, and
possession of a firearm by a felon. We GRANT Hays’ motion to
file his reply brief in its present form. Hays’ motions for
reimbursement of costs, return of property, and supplementation
of the record are DENIED.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 96-11326
-2-
Hays argues that the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a), is
unconstitutional as applied to his offense; that Counts 1 and 2
of the indictment are defective; that identification evidence was
tainted by an impermissibly suggestive photographic array; that
evidence seized from a hotel room and Hays’ truck should have
been suppressed; that the Government presented perjured
testimony; that the district court admitted extraneous
prejudicial evidence; that a jury instruction was plain error;
that the jury was tainted by exposure to midtrial publicity; that
his sentence should not have been enhanced pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 3559(c); and that trial counsel was ineffective for
“threatening” Hays to accept a plea bargain, disagreeing with
Hays over defense strategy, moving for appointment of cocounsel,
failing to call witnesses, failing to request a Jackson v.
Denno** hearing with regard to the testimony of Hays’ accomplice,
inadequately cross-examining the Government’s expert witnesses
and failing to offer expert testimony on Hays’ behalf, failing to
offer Hays’ medical records into evidence, and stipulating that
Hays had a prior conviction.
We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties
and find no error. Consequently, we AFFIRM.
AFFIRMED; MOTION TO FILE REPLY BRIEF IN PRESENT FORM
GRANTED; MOTIONS FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF COSTS, RETURN OF PROPERTY,
AND TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD DENIED.
**
378 U.S. 368, 395-96 (1964).