United States v. Peterman, 95-40026 (1995)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Number: 95-40026
Visitors: 22
Filed: Dec. 07, 1995
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 95-40026 Summary Calendar _ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JOHN FREDERICK PETERMAN, Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. C:94-CV-228 (C:91-CR-233) - - - - - - - - - - December 20, 1995 Before KING, SMITH and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* This is an appeal from the district court's order denying appellant's m
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 95-40026 Summary Calendar _ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JOHN FREDERICK PETERMAN, Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. C:94-CV-228 (C:91-CR-233) - - - - - - - - - - December 20, 1995 Before KING, SMITH and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* This is an appeal from the district court's order denying appellant's mo..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 95-40026
Summary Calendar
__________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOHN FREDERICK PETERMAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. C:94-CV-228 (C:91-CR-233)
- - - - - - - - - -
December 20, 1995
Before KING, SMITH and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
This is an appeal from the district court's order denying
appellant's motion under 28 U.S.C. ยง 2255. He argues that the
district court erred in dismissing his claims on the basis of
procedural default. We have reviewed the record and the district
court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we
affirm for essentially the reasons given by the district court.
AFFIRMED.
*
Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions
that have no precedential value and merely decide particular
cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes
needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal
profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published.
Source: CourtListener