Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

97 F.3d 1457

Docket No. 95-4215EM

Ivan Stroh v. United States

Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals

Submitted Sept. 25, 1996. Decided Oct. 2, 1996.

Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1996-10-02

Relies on Thompson v. Ardrox CWC, Inc.

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1996-10-02

NOTICE: Eighth Circuit Rule 28A(k) governs citation of unpublished opinions and provides that they are not precedent and generally should not be cited unless relevant to establishing the doctrines of res judicata, collateral estoppel, the law of the case, or if the opinion has persuasive value on a material issue and no published opinion would serve as well.

Before FAGG, WOLLMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

¶1

Having searched the record and considered the parties' briefs, we find no merit in Stroh's contentions. Stroh failed to show "new evidence" likely to produce a different result on retrial, prejudice attributable to counsel's claimed deficiencies, or the prosecutor's knowing use of perjured testimony. We also conclude the district court correctly denied relief on Stroh's sentencing claim. Finally, we do not reach arguments Stroh raises for the first time on appeal. We thus affirm the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

/97/f3d/1457 · .json · Public domain