William A. Reinke v. United States

Good Law
990 F.2d 1259·1993 WL 98789
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApril 5, 199391-55418California1,875 words

Opinion

Opinion

990 F.2d 1259 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. William A. REINKE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee. No. 91-55418. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted March 23, 1993. * Decided April 5, 1993. Before WALLACE, Chief Judge, and FARRIS and BRUNETTI, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 William A. Reinke appeals pro se the district court's denial of his motion for reconsideration. The district court denied Reinke's third pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion because the claimed error "does not constitute a fundamental defect which inherently results in a complete miscarriage of justice or an omission inconsistent with the rudimentary demands of fair practice." We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 , and we affirm. I. Procedural History 3 On 24 February 1986, the United States Attorney for the Central District of California filed an information against Reinke alleging two counts of mail fraud in…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.