Filed: Jul. 25, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 95-20923 USDC No. CR-H-90-291 _ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus HAROLD TEEL TARTER, Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas - - - - - - - - - - July 12, 1996 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Harold Teel Tarter, federal prison # 54942-079 and Texas prison # 283347, seeks to proceed in forma paupe
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 95-20923 USDC No. CR-H-90-291 _ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus HAROLD TEEL TARTER, Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas - - - - - - - - - - July 12, 1996 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Harold Teel Tarter, federal prison # 54942-079 and Texas prison # 283347, seeks to proceed in forma pauper..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 95-20923
USDC No. CR-H-90-291
__________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
HAROLD TEEL TARTER,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
- - - - - - - - - -
July 12, 1996
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Harold Teel Tarter, federal prison # 54942-079 and Texas
prison # 283347, seeks to proceed in forma pauperis in his appeal
from the district court's order dismissing with prejudice his 28
U.S.C. ยง 2255 motion. Tarter has identified no error in the
dismissal. United States v. Tarter, No. CA-H-95-838 (S.D. Tex.;
Sept. 14, 1995).
Accordingly, the appeal fails to present a nonfrivolous
issue, and the motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is
DENIED. See Jackson v. Dallas Police Dep't,
811 F.2d 260, 261
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
No. 95-20923
-2-
(5th Cir. 1986). The appeal is frivolous, and it is DISMISSED.
See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. The motions for appointment of counsel and
to expedite the appeal are also DENIED.
APPEAL DISMISSED.