Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Rodriguez, 96-50235 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 96-50235 Visitors: 12
Filed: Dec. 16, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 96-50235 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus GEORGE RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellee. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. A-95-CV-430 - - - - - - - - - - December 4, 1996 Before REAVLEY, BARKSDALE and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* George Rodriguez, federal inmate #56267-080, appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion
More
               IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT



                           No. 96-50235
                         Summary Calendar



     UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                         Plaintiff-Appellant,


                              versus

     GEORGE RODRIGUEZ,

                                         Defendant-Appellee.


                         - - - - - - - - - -
           Appeal from the United States District Court
                 for the Western District of Texas
                        USDC No. A-95-CV-430
                         - - - - - - - - - -
                           December 4, 1996
Before REAVLEY, BARKSDALE and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     George Rodriguez, federal inmate #56267-080, appeals the

denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion.

     To the extent that Rodriguez requires a certificate of

appealability (COA) in order to appeal the district court’s

order, we conclude that Rodriguez has not made a substantial

showing of the denial of a federal right.   See 28 U.S.C.



     *
        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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
§ 2253(c)(2).    Whether or not a COA is required, Rodriguez’s

arguments lack merit and the district court did not err in

denying § 2255 relief.

     AFFIRMED.   COA DENIED.

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