United States v. John M. Tinsley

991 F.2d 804 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.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. John M. TINSLEY, Defendant-Appellant. No. 91-30450. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted April 7, 1993. * Decided April 15, 1993. Before BROWNING, KOZINSKI and RYMER, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 John M. Tinsley appeals pro se the district court's denial of his motion to set aside its order of restitution imposed pursuant to the former Federal Probation Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3651 (repealed 1987). Tinsley pleaded guilty to two counts of mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341 , and one count of equity skimming in violation of 12 U.S.C. § 1709 . On appeal, Tinsley contends that the district court's restitution order is invalid because he was not present at the restitution hearing and because the order was not set in accordance with established federal law. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 . We review de…