Filed: Oct. 25, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-30456 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JOHN LACOUR, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 97-CR-10012-3 - October 25, 2001 Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* John Lacour, federal prisoner # 09668-035, appeals the district court’s denial of his postconviction motion to rescind the imp
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-30456 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JOHN LACOUR, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 97-CR-10012-3 - October 25, 2001 Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* John Lacour, federal prisoner # 09668-035, appeals the district court’s denial of his postconviction motion to rescind the impo..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-30456
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOHN LACOUR,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 97-CR-10012-3
--------------------
October 25, 2001
Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
John Lacour, federal prisoner # 09668-035, appeals the
district court’s denial of his postconviction motion to rescind
the imposition of a $40,000 fine. Lacour challenged the fine on
direct appeal, and we affirmed the district court. See United
States v. Lacour, No. 98-30803 (5th Cir. Apr. 11, 2000)
(unpublished). Lacour, however, again argues that imposition of
a fine was a violation of his Eighth Amendment rights because of
his inability to pay.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-30456
-2-
The district court was without jurisdiction to entertain
this unauthorized motion. See United States v. Hatten,
167 F.3d
884, 886 (5th Cir. 1999) (district court has no jurisdiction to
entertain a challenge to the legality of a fine imposed as a term
of supervised release); see also United States v. Early,
27 F.3d
140, 141-42 (5th Cir. 1994) (district court has no jurisdiction
to entertain unauthorized motions). This appeal is without
arguable merit and therefore frivolous. See Howard v. King,
707
F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). It is dismissed. 5th Cir.
R. 42.2.
DISMISSED.