United States v. Mark C. Thomas

988 F.2d 125 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mark C. THOMAS, Defendant-Appellant. No. 92-16277. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Feb. 11, 1993. * Decided Feb. 23, 1993. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, Nos. CV-91-00526-LDG, CR-S-87-00284-LDG; Lloyd D. George, District Judge, Presiding. D.Nev. AFFIRMED. Before GOODWIN, SCHROEDER and CANBY, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Mark C. Thomas appeals pro se the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Thomas contends that the district court erred by finding that he failed to satisfy the "in custody" requirement for a section 2255 motion. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 , and we affirm. 3 We review de novo the district court's denial of a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. United States v. Angelone, 894 F.2d 1129, 1130 (9th Cir.1990). 4 Relief under section 2255 is not…