Filed: Jul. 25, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 95-20625 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus DONALD QUINONEZ-MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 94-CV-2906 July 8, 1996 Before JOLLY, JONES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Donald Quinonez-Martinez argues that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion for abuse of proce
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 95-20625 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus DONALD QUINONEZ-MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 94-CV-2906 July 8, 1996 Before JOLLY, JONES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Donald Quinonez-Martinez argues that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion for abuse of proced..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-20625
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DONALD QUINONEZ-MARTINEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 94-CV-2906
July 8, 1996
Before JOLLY, JONES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Donald Quinonez-Martinez argues that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing
his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion for abuse of procedure. We have viewed the record, the opinion of the
district court, and the briefs, and find that the district court did not abuse its discretion. Therefore,
the denial of Quinonez-Martinez’s § 2255 motion is affirmed substantially for the reasons stated by
the district court. United States v. Quinonez-Martinez, No. H-94-2906 (S.D. Tex. June 1, 1995).
AFFIRMED.
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.