961 F.2d 1576 (6th Cir. 1992), 91-3977, Banks v. Russell
|Citation:||961 F.2d 1576|
|Party Name:||Rawleigh BANKS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harry K. RUSSELL, Supt., Respondent-Appellee.|
|Case Date:||May 11, 1992|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit|
This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA6 Rule 28 and FI CTA6 IOP 206 regarding use of unpublished opinions)
N.D. Ohio, No. 88-01326; White, D.J.
Before RALPH B. GUY, JR., BOGGS and SILER, Circuit Judges.
Rawleigh Banks is a former Ohio prisoner who appeals the dismissal of a habeas corpus petition that he had filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, the panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a).
In 1986, a jury convicted Banks of passing bad checks, forgery, uttering, grand theft, and receiving stolen property. He raised ten claims in his federal petition: 1) that the trial court improperly admitted evidence of his prior convictions; 2) that the trial court improperly admitted a letter demanding payment on a bad check; 3) that a police officer was allowed to testify concerning his prior convictions and that evidence was admitted regarding convictions which were more than ten years old; 4) that there was insufficient evidence on a bad check charge; 5) that there was insufficient evidence of forgery and uttering; 6) that there was insufficient evidence of receiving stolen property; 7) that he received a greater sentence because he demanded a jury trial; 8) that the indictment was "constructively amended" by the trial court's instructions; 9) that the trial court's instructions were "conflicting, inconsistent and inapplicable;" and 10) that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. On September 18, 1991, the district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation and dismissed the petition. It is from this judgment that Banks now appeals. In addition, he has filed a motion to extend the appointment of his attorney under the Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A.
As an initial matter, it is noted that Banks has not raised any arguments regarding several of his original claims on appeal. Issues are not reviewable if they have been abandoned on appeal, even if they...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP