Filed: May 13, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 98-41059 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JOHN HENRY TOPSY, Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. C-91-CR-303-1 - - - - - - - - - - May 12, 1999 Before POLITZ, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* John Henry Topsy (#55462-079), has applied for a certificate of appealability (“COA”) for an a
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 98-41059 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JOHN HENRY TOPSY, Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. C-91-CR-303-1 - - - - - - - - - - May 12, 1999 Before POLITZ, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* John Henry Topsy (#55462-079), has applied for a certificate of appealability (“COA”) for an ap..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-41059
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOHN HENRY TOPSY,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. C-91-CR-303-1
- - - - - - - - - -
May 12, 1999
Before POLITZ, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
John Henry Topsy (#55462-079), has applied for a certificate
of appealability (“COA”) for an appeal from the dismissal of his
motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and of his application for a writ
of audita querela. Topsy does not challenge the district court’s
conclusion that his § 2255 motion is time-barred.
Even if it is assumed that the writ of audita querela
survives as a vehicle for challenging criminal convictions, it is
not available to Topsy because the issue he wishes to raise does
not involve a legal defense which arose after the judgment. See
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
United States v. Banda,
1 F.3d 354, 356 (5th Cir. 1993). The
request for a COA is DENIED AS UNNECESSARY and the appeal is
DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. See Howard v. King,
707 F.2d 215, 219-20
(5th Cir. 1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
COA DENIED AS UNNECESSARY; APPEAL DISMISSED.