United States v. Husain

* 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
December 8, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-20907
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RAZA HUSAIN,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
(H-02-CV-2469)
(H-98-CR-105-1)
--------------------
Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Defendant-Appellant Raza Husain, federal prisoner #79193-079,
appeals the district court’s denial of the ineffective-assistance-
of-counsel claim raised in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion challenging
his conviction and sentence for two counts of possession of a
machine gun, two counts of unlawful transfer of a machine gun to
another person, and one count of corruptly attempting to persuade
another to withhold information from an Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms
(ATF) agent. Husain contends that his trial counsel was

-- 1 of 2 --

2
ineffective for not introducing the report of C.E. Anderson, a gun
examiner who examined and test fired six of the guns involved in
the instant case. Husain argues that the conclusions in Anderson’s
report differed from the conclusions of the ATF agent who testified
at trial that all six guns were fully automatic.
Anderson’s report concluded that two of the guns fired only
semi-automatic, but that all six of the guns had been “altered to
discharge full automatic, or the intent to make them discharge full
automatic.” The definition of machine gun includes any weapon
“designed to shoot . . . automatically.” 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b).
Although the attempt to alter some of the guns to fire in the full
automatic mode failed, they were “designed” by alteration to shoot
. . . automatically.” Id. Thus, Husain has failed to demonstrate
that he was prejudiced by counsel’s failure to introduce the
Anderson report. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687
(1984).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --