United States v. David Lee Alexander

92 F.3d 1194 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.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. David Lee ALEXANDER, Defendant-Appellant. No. 95-10254. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted July 29, 1996. * Decided Aug. 5, 1996. Before: HUG, Chief Judge, SCHROEDER and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 David Lee Alexander appeals pro se his jury conviction and sentence for bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113 (a). Alexander contends: (1) the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his conviction; (2) the prosecutor engaged in misconduct; (3) the district court erred by concluding that he was a career offender; and (4) the district court improperly imposed restitution. 1 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and affirm. 3 Alexander asserts that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his conviction because there was no concrete evidence that connected him to the…