Filed: Aug. 27, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 99-10013 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ALONZO RICHARD, also known as Tony Sinclair, Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:92-CR-254-H - - - - - - - - - - August 26, 1999 Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Alonzo Richard, federal prisoner # 23088-077, seeks l
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 99-10013 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ALONZO RICHARD, also known as Tony Sinclair, Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:92-CR-254-H - - - - - - - - - - August 26, 1999 Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Alonzo Richard, federal prisoner # 23088-077, seeks le..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-10013
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ALONZO RICHARD, also known as
Tony Sinclair,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:92-CR-254-H
- - - - - - - - - -
August 26, 1999
Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Alonzo Richard, federal prisoner # 23088-077, seeks leave to
proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) on appeal. Richard has failed
to raise any nonfrivolous issues for appeal. See United States
v. Boutwell,
896 F.2d 884, 889-90 (5th Cir. 1990)(one-judge
order). Richard’s motion requesting concurrence form was
actually a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion which the district
court was without jurisdiction to consider without our
authorization. Accordingly, Richard’s motion to proceed IFP on
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 99-10013
-2-
appeal is DENIED. Because Richard’s appeal is frivolous, it is
DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Richard’s motion to supplement
the record is DENIED.
IFP MOTION DENIED; MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT RECORD DENIED;
APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS.