The Honorable John B. Jones, United States District Judge for the District of 1 South Dakota. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 96-4201

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of South Dakota. Darrell A. Link, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: February 27, 1998 Filed: March 5, 1998

___________ Before FAGG, BEAM, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Af ter a jury trial, Darrell A. Link was convicted of three counts of mail fraud , in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341; one count of conversion of mortgaged or pledge d property, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 658; and eleven counts of concealing bankruptcy ass ets, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 152(1). The district court sentenced Link to 3 6 1 months imprisonment and three years supervised release on each count, to be served concurrently. Link challenges his convictions and sentence, and we affirm.-2-

For revers al, Link first argues the district court erred in not declaring a mistrial after a government witness testified to Link & s prior state conversion co nviction, because the court had ruled prior to trial that the government could seek introduction of th e co nviction only if Link testified and denied being convicted of a felony conviction
. Because Link failed to move for a mistrial, we review this argument only for plain error and find none: among other things, the testimony resulted from a question posed b y Link, not the government a nd the court struck the testimony upon Link & s request. See United States v. Nelson , 984 F.2d 894, 89 8 & n.6 (8th Cir.) (standard of review), cert. denied , 508 U.S. 966 (1993); United States v. York , 830 F.2d 885, 892-93 (8th Cir
. 1987) (defendant may not invite error during cross-examination a nd then seek appellate review of error), cert. denied , 484 U.S. 1074 (1988); see also United States v
. Montanye , 996 F.2d 190, 192 (8th Cir. 1993) (en banc) (defining plain error). Next Link argues that the district court erred in allowing him to be tried in his jail clothing. We likewise review this argument only for plain error because Link did no t object below. See United States v. Grady , 997 F.2d 418, 424 (8th Cir.), cert . denied , 510 U.S. 958 (1993). Althou gh there was some discussion about a preference for wearing jail cl othes, defense counsel said he was willing to get civilian clothes for Link and the court stated that Link could either appear in jail clothes if he wished, or he co uld wear something else. We conclude no plain error occurred. See Estelle v
. Williams , 425 U.S. 501, 503-05 (1976); Grady , 997 F.2d at 424. Link further argues the district court erred in not calculating the amount of loss used to dete rmine his Guidelines range based on actual loss. We conclude, however, that the district court did not clearly err, as the record shows Link intended to cause a loss in the challenged amount and the actual loss was zero. See United States v
. Roggy , 76 F.3d 189, 192 (8th Cir.) (standard of review), cert. denied , 116 S. Ct. 1700 (1996); see also U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2F1.1, comment. (n.7) (1997) (if intended loss is greater than actual loss, amount of intended loss i s used for purposes of determining offense level).-3-

We now turn to the arguments Link raises in a pro se supplemental brief file d with leave of

this court. We reject Link & s contention that the federal statutes unde r which he was convicted do not apply to him, and that the district court lacked authority to enter judgment against him. Finally, assuming without deciding that the argument is even properly before us, we reject Link & s challenge to the sufficiency o f the evidence. Accordingly, we affirm. On appeal, Link has filed pro se p apers seeking various ty pes of relief from this court; we deny all such relief, because his requests ar e meritless or moot. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.