Filed: Dec. 16, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 97-41044 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JIMMY BEAUMONT, Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:95-CV-320 - - - - - - - - - - December 1, 1998 Before DAVIS, DUHE’, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Jimmy Beaumont, federal prisoner # 03018-078, appeals from the district court’s dismissal of this 28
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 97-41044 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JIMMY BEAUMONT, Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:95-CV-320 - - - - - - - - - - December 1, 1998 Before DAVIS, DUHE’, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Jimmy Beaumont, federal prisoner # 03018-078, appeals from the district court’s dismissal of this 28 U..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-41044
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JIMMY BEAUMONT,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:95-CV-320
- - - - - - - - - -
December 1, 1998
Before DAVIS, DUHE’, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jimmy Beaumont, federal prisoner # 03018-078, appeals from
the district court’s dismissal of this 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as
an abuse of the motion pursuant to Rule 9(b) of the Rules
Governing Section 2255 Proceedings. His assertion that the
district court erred by misconstruing his earlier pleading as a
§ 2255 motion is incorrect and does not establish cause for his
failure to raise in that pleading the claims he sought to raise
in his successive § 2255 motion. Because Beaumont fails to
establish cause and resulting prejudice, and because he fails to
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 97-41044
-2-
show that a miscarriage of justice would result from the court’s
failure to address his successive claims, the district court did
not abuse its discretion by dismissing Beaumont’s motion pursuant
to Rule 9(b). See Hudson v. Whitley,
979 F.2d 1058, 1063 (5th
Cir. 1992). Nor did the district court abuse its discretion by
dismissing the motion without conducting an evidentiary hearing.
See United States v. Bartholomew,
974 F.2d 39, 41 (5th Cir.
1992).
AFFIRMED.