United States v. Beadles ( 1999 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-40044
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOE HAVEN BEADLES,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
(92-CR-49-2)
(6:96-CV-456)
- - - - - - - - - -
December 22, 1999
Before POLITZ, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Defendant-Appellant Joe Haven Beadles, federal prisoner #
04049-078, appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion.
Beadles has filed a motion for a certificate of appealability (COA)
to appeal the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255motion. As Beadles filed his § 2255 motion on April 24, 1996, the
effective date of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act
(AEDPA), the AEDPA does not apply to his case. See Lindh v.
Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 336 (1997). Accordingly, a COA is
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
unnecessary, and no additional briefing is needed for us to
consider Beadles’ issues on appeal.
Beadles challenges the constitutionality of his conviction and
sentence for conspiracy to commit wire fraud and mail fraud in an
effort to evade Texas diesel fuel excise taxes. He also challenges
his conviction for money laundering.
Beadles argues that the government withheld evidence of a
financial agreement allegedly indicating that he paid the excise
tax, but he fails to show that the evidence was material or that
the government suppressed the evidence. See Blackmon v. Scott, 22
F.3d 560, 564 (5th Cir. 1994). Beadles argues that the evidence
was insufficient to convict him because he did not commit a crime
under Texas law; however, the evidence does support the conclusion
that Beadles conspired to evade the Texas diesel fuel excise tax by
using the mails as well as wire transmissions to accomplish the
scheme. The evidence also establishes that Beadles laundered the
profits derived from the tax evasion scheme. See Jackson v.
Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979).
Beadles argues next that the indictment was insufficient, but
he fails to present exceptional circumstances entitling him to
challenge of the sufficiency of the indictment. See United States
v. Prince, 868 F.2d 1379, 1383-84 (5th Cir. 1986). Beadles also
insists that (1) federal venue was improper, (2) it is impossible
to defraud the state comptroller under Texas law, and (3) the court
gave prejudicial jury instructions. These three issues are raised
for the first time on appeal and will not be considered. See
2
Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co., 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir.
1999), petition for cert. filed, (Nov. 24, 1999)(No. 99-884).
Finally, Beadles alleges several instances of ineffective
assistance of counsel; however, he fails to make the requisite
showing of deficiency and prejudice. See Strickland v. Washington,
466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984).
The district court’s denial of Beadles’ § 2255 motion is
AFFIRMED.
3