Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Wilson, 03-30354 (2003)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 03-30354 Visitors: 21
Filed: Aug. 15, 2003
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 15, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 03-30354 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff - Appellee v. WILBERT WILSON Defendant - Appellant - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 99-CR-50082-2 - Before KING, Chief Judge, and EMILIO M. GARZA and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Wilbert Wilson appeals
More
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 15, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 03-30354 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff - Appellee v. WILBERT WILSON Defendant - Appellant -------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 99-CR-50082-2 -------------------- Before KING, Chief Judge, and EMILIO M. GARZA and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Wilbert Wilson appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to compel the Government to perform on an alleged agreement. Wilson argues that the district court has authority to review the Government’s refusal to move for a downward departure and that the district court should have conducted a hearing prior to denying him relief. He argues that the Government has acted in bad faith and has breached a cooperation agreement. He asserts that the jurisdictional basis for his * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 03-30354 -2- motion is FED. R. CRIM. P. 35(b). Wilson’s motion cannot arise under FED. R. CRIM. P. 35(b) because the motion was not filed by the Government. Wilson has appealed from the denial of a meaningless, unauthorized motion. Accordingly, the district court’s denial of Wilson’s motion is AFFIRMED because the district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the motion. AFFIRMED.
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