United States v. Beaumont ( 1998 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-40953
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOHNNIE FAE BEAUMONT,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 97-40953
- - - - - - - - - -
December 1, 1998
Before DAVIS, DUHE’, and PARKER, Circuit Judges
PER CURIAM:*
Johnnie Fae Beaumont, federal prisoner # 03051-078, appeals
from the district court’s judgment denying her 28 U.S.C. § 2255motion to set aside her sentence. We have reviewed the record
and the briefs of the parties, and we affirm the district court’s
judgment. Because Beaumont challenged the sufficiency of the
evidence in her direct appeal, we do not reach the issue again in
this appeal. See United States v. Kalish, 780 F.2d 506, 508 (5th
Cir. 1986); United States v. Beaumont, 972 F.2d 553, 563-64 (5th
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 97-40953
-2-
Cir. 1992). None of the three grounds of ineffective assistance
of counsel Beaumont raises for the first time on appeal rise to
the level of plain error. See United States v. Calverley, 37
F.3d 160, 162-64 (5th Cir. 1994)(en banc). Beaumont’s double
jeopardy claim is foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in
United States v. Ursery, 116 S. Ct. 2135, 2149 (1996). Her
conclusional conflict-of-interest assertion is insufficient to
raise a § 2255 constitutional claim. See Koch v. Puckett, 907
F.2d 524, 530 (5th Cir. 1990). Finally, Beaumont’s claim that
the fine was excessive is beyond the scope of her § 2255 motion.
See United States v. Segler, 37 F.3d 1131, 1136-37 (5th Cir.
1994).
AFFIRMED.