United States v. Bates, 96-50093 (1996)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Number: 96-50093
Visitors: 8
Filed: Jul. 17, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 96-50093 Summary Calendar _ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus DARRELL LENARD BATES, Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. A-93-CR-181 - - - - - - - - - - June 12, 1996 Before JOLLY, JONES and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Nothing in the record in the instant case casts any doubt on the appropriateness of the distri
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 96-50093 Summary Calendar _ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus DARRELL LENARD BATES, Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. A-93-CR-181 - - - - - - - - - - June 12, 1996 Before JOLLY, JONES and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Nothing in the record in the instant case casts any doubt on the appropriateness of the distric..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT __________________ No. 96-50093 Summary Calendar __________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus DARRELL LENARD BATES, Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. A-93-CR-181 - - - - - - - - - - June 12, 1996 Before JOLLY, JONES and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Nothing in the record in the instant case casts any doubt on the appropriateness of the district court's denial of the innominate motion filed by Darrell Lenard Bates. Because the instant appeal is frivolous, it is dismissed. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. All pending motions are denied as moot. APPEAL DISMISSED; ALL PENDING MOTIONS DENIED. * Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.
Source: CourtListener
