Filed: Feb. 15, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 95-40406 Summary Calendar _ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus WESLEY WILLIAM WALTER, Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:94-CV-310 - - - - - - - - - - February 7, 1996 Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Wesley William Walter appeals the district court's denial of his motion filed pursuant
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 95-40406 Summary Calendar _ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus WESLEY WILLIAM WALTER, Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:94-CV-310 - - - - - - - - - - February 7, 1996 Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Wesley William Walter appeals the district court's denial of his motion filed pursuant ..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 95-40406
Summary Calendar
__________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
WESLEY WILLIAM WALTER,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:94-CV-310
- - - - - - - - - -
February 7, 1996
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Wesley William Walter appeals the district court's denial of
his motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 2255. Walter's claim
regarding counsel's failure to file a notice of appeal is without
merit because Walter validly waived his right to appeal his
sentence. See United States v. Portillo,
18 F.3d 290, 293 (5th
Cir.), cert. denied,
115 S. Ct. 244 (1994). Walter's claim that
his plea agreement was vague and unenforceable because it failed to
specify that other criminal acts may be used against him at
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
sentencing also is without merit. Any indication of such in the
plea agreement would have been purely speculative and thus properly
was not included in the agreement. We do not address for the first
time on appeal Walter's newly-raised argument concerning the
allegedly "false facts of jurisdiction" contained within the
indictment. See Varnado v. Lynaugh,
920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir.
1991).
APPEAL DISMISSED.
2