Filed: Jun. 08, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 97-30523 Summary Calendar _ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus DAVID J. MARSHALL, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana (96-CR-50060-1) June 2, 1999 Before REYNALDO G. GARZA, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that David Marshall’s untimely notice of appeal was not due to excusable
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 97-30523 Summary Calendar _ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus DAVID J. MARSHALL, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana (96-CR-50060-1) June 2, 1999 Before REYNALDO G. GARZA, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that David Marshall’s untimely notice of appeal was not due to excusable n..
More
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH CIRCUIT
_________________
No. 97-30523
Summary Calendar
_________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DAVID J. MARSHALL,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
(96-CR-50060-1)
June 2, 1999
Before REYNALDO G. GARZA, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that David Marshall’s untimely notice
of appeal was not due to excusable neglect. See Halicki v. Louisiana Casino Cruises, Inc.,
151 F.3d
465, 470 (5th Cir. 1998); United States v. Clark,
51 F.3d 42, 44 (5th Cir. 1995). Without a finding
of excusable neglect, Marshall’s notice of appeal is untimely, and this court lacks jurisdiction over his
appeal. See FED. R. APP. P. 3(a)(1);
Halicki, 151 F.3d at 467 n.1. Accordingly, this appeal is
DISMISSED.
*
Pursuant to Fifth Circuit Rule 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Fifth Circuit Rule
47.5.4.