United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS March 2, 2004
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 01-50796
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ROBERT “WHITE EAGLE” OTTO; ROBERT JONATHON SCHEIDT;
GREGG WILLIAM PAULSON,
Defendants-Appellants.
consolidated with
No. 01-51232
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ROBERT “WHITE EAGLE” OTTO,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC Nos. P-00-CR-400-1; P-00-CR-400-2;
P-00-CR-400-3; P-00-CR-400-4;
P-00-CR-400-5; & P-00-CR-400-6
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Robert “White Eagle” Otto appeals from his conviction by
guilty plea of conspiring to violate the National Firearms Act.
Otto, Gregg William Paulson, and Robert Jonathon Scheidt appeal
from a prejudgment order of the district court denying various
motions they had filed in the criminal proceeding against them.
The appeals have been consolidated. The appellants have filed
several motions in each case, and a petition for judicial review of
various federal- and state-court rulings has been filed. The
petition for judicial review and all outstanding motions in both
cases are hereby DENIED.
In appeal number 01-50796, Appellants seek interlocutory
review of several of the district court’s findings, including its
finding that it had subject matter jurisdiction over the case and
personal jurisdiction over the Appellants; that there was a
justiciable controversy; and that venue was appropriate. This
appeal is DISMISSED for want of appellate jurisdiction.1
In appeal number 01-51232, Appellant Otto contends that the
district court lacked jurisdiction to try him; that his indictment
was defective; that the district judge erred by failing to recuse
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
1
United States v. Bird, 709 F.2d 388, 390 (5th Cir. 1983).
2
himself; that the district court erred by not allowing him to raise
various jurisdictional and nonjurisdictional arguments common to
Texas law; that he received ineffective assistance of standby
counsel; that the government failed to provide a sufficient factual
basis for his guilty plea; that his plea was involuntary because he
was not informed of the mens rea element of his offense; and that
his sentencing proceeding was flawed because there was a variance
between the factual basis for his guilty plea and the facts recited
in his presentence report and because there were no adversarial
hearings to resolve factual disputes. After examining the briefs
submitted by the parties and reviewing the record, we find no
error. We therefore AFFIRM the district court.
APPEAL NO. 01-50796 DISMISSED; APPEAL NO. 01-51232 AFFIRMED;
PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW AND ALL MOTIONS DENIED.
3