Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Garza, 95-50472 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 95-50472 Visitors: 17
Filed: Sep. 18, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 95-50472 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus RENE GARZA, Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. SA-94-CV-8825 - - - - - - - - - - September 3, 1996 Before EMILIO M. GARZA, STEWART and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Rene Garza (#568511) moves for leave to appeal in forma pauperis (IFP), arguing that the di
More
               IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT



                           No. 95-50472
                         Summary Calendar



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                           Plaintiff-Appellee,


versus

RENE GARZA,

                                           Defendant-Appellant.


                         - - - - - - - - - -
           Appeal from the United States District Court
                 for the Western District of Texas
                       USDC No. SA-94-CV-8825
                         - - - - - - - - - -
                          September 3, 1996
Before EMILIO M. GARZA, STEWART and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Rene Garza (#568511) moves for leave to appeal in forma

pauperis (IFP), arguing that the district court improperly denied

his 28 U.S.C. ยง 2255 motion to vacate his sentence.    Garza has

identified no error in the denial.   See United States v. Garza,

SA-994-CV-8825 (W.D. Tex. May 31, 1995).    His appeal fails to

present a nonfrivolous issue; the motion for IFP is DENIED.

Jackson v. Dallas Police Dep't, 
811 F.2d 260
, 261 (5th Cir.

     *
        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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 95-50472
                               - 2 -

1986).   The appeal is DISMISSED.   5th Cir. R. 42.2.

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer