The Law Lion Logo - AI-powered legal writing assistantThe Law Lion
Home
Features
Pricing
Services
AboutBlogCasesContact
Login
Ask Law Lion AI
  1. Home
  2. >Cases
  3. >United States v. Seaton
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

United States v. Seaton

95-312870 citations

Table of Contents

  • Opinions
  • Opinions
  • IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _________________...

Table of Contents

  • Opinions
  • Opinions
  • IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _________________...

No summary available for this case.

Opinions

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-31287 Summary Calendar __________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

H. DONOVAN SEATON, et al.,

Defendants,

H. DONOVAN SEATON,

Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 95-CV-1254 G - - - - - - - - - - May 17, 1996

Before SMITH, BENDAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appellant H. Donovan Seaton appeals the denial of his 28

U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his sentence, arguing that he

received ineffective assistance of counsel, that the court made

several errors in sentencing him, and that the prosecution

obtained his guilty plea through outrageous conduct and coercion.

Seaton raises his substantive ineffective-assistance claims and

an assertion that an enhancement to his base offense level

* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. No. 95-31287 -2-

violated the Ex Post Facto Clause for the first time on appeal.

Seaton has not shown plain error as to these claims. See

Robertson v. Plano City of Texas, 70 F.3d 21, 23 (5th Cir. 1995).

As to Seaton’s other claims, this court AFFIRMS essentially for

the reasons cited by the magistrate judge and district court.

United States v. Seaton, No. 91-364-”G” (E.D. La. Oct. 13, 1995).

AFFIRMED.

The Law Lion logoThe Law Lion.

The Law Lion is the only platform combining AI legal writing grounded in real case law with an expert human writing service — serving attorneys, paralegals, and everyday people nationwide.

info@thelawlion.com
Mon–Fri 9am–6pm EST · Rush available
Serving Clients Nationwide

AI Tool

  • → AI Legal Writing Tool
  • → AI Document Drafting
  • → Motion Drafting
  • → Contract Drafting
  • → Legal Research
  • → Case Law Search
  • → Citation Generator
  • → Document Review
  • → Contract Review
  • → For Lawyers

Writing Service

  • → Eviction Defense
  • → Court Documents
  • → Custody & Family
  • → Divorce Documents
  • → Debt & Collections
  • → All Writing Services

Top Guides

  • → Eviction Response Guide
  • → Best AI Legal Tools 2026
  • → Debt Validation Letter Guide

Company

  • → About The Law Lion
  • → Client Results
  • → Transparent Pricing
  • → Legal Guides & Blog
  • → Contact & Free Consult
  • → Affiliate Program

Top Services

  • → Eviction Notice Response
  • → Debt Validation Letter
  • → Court Summons Response
© 2026 The Law Lion LLC · AI Legal Writing & Expert Document Service
Privacy PolicyTerms of ServiceSitemap