Filed: Aug. 19, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 96-20078 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus STEPHEN ANENE EZEOKE, Defendant-Appellant - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. CA-H-95-4014 - - - - - - - - - - August 9, 1996 Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Appellant Stephen Anene Ezeoke, #59812-079, appeals the district court’s denial of his motion
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 96-20078 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus STEPHEN ANENE EZEOKE, Defendant-Appellant - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. CA-H-95-4014 - - - - - - - - - - August 9, 1996 Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Appellant Stephen Anene Ezeoke, #59812-079, appeals the district court’s denial of his motion t..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-20078
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
STEPHEN ANENE EZEOKE,
Defendant-Appellant
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. CA-H-95-4014
- - - - - - - - - -
August 9, 1996
Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Appellant Stephen Anene Ezeoke, #59812-079, appeals the
district court’s denial of his motion to vacate, set aside or
correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, arguing
ineffective assistance of counsel, an improper guilty-plea
colloquy, and sentencing errors. We affirm for essentially the
reasons given by the district court. See United States v.
Ezeoke, Cr. No. H-92-104 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 15, 1995).
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 96-20078
- 2 -
Ezeoke also argues that the district court erred by not
granting his motion for enlargement of time in which to file a
response brief. This argument is moot as the response brief was
before the court when it denied Ezeoke’s post-judgment motion.
Finally, Ezeoke argues that the district court was biased. This
court has reviewed the record and finds no bias. An adverse
judicial ruling cannot, alone, show improper bias. Liteky v.
United States,
114 S. Ct. 1146, 1157 (1994).
Because Ezeoke cannot show a strong likelihood of success on
his constitutional claims or any exceptional circumstances
warranting relief, his motion for release pending appeal is also
denied. See Calley v. Callaway,
596 F.2d 701, 702 (5th Cir.
1974).
AFFIRMED.