Filed: Aug. 09, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 98-51099 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus KEITH DWAYNE WARD, also known as Kieth D. Waters, Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. A-93-CR-124-ALL-JN - - - - - - - - - - August 4, 1999 Before JOLLY, WIENER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Keith Dwayne Ward, federal prisoner # 53650-065 E/B, appeals
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 98-51099 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus KEITH DWAYNE WARD, also known as Kieth D. Waters, Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. A-93-CR-124-ALL-JN - - - - - - - - - - August 4, 1999 Before JOLLY, WIENER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Keith Dwayne Ward, federal prisoner # 53650-065 E/B, appeals t..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-51099
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
KEITH DWAYNE WARD, also known as
Kieth D. Waters,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. A-93-CR-124-ALL-JN
- - - - - - - - - -
August 4, 1999
Before JOLLY, WIENER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Keith Dwayne Ward, federal prisoner # 53650-065 E/B, appeals
the district court’s denial of his motion to vacate the fine and
restitution portions of his sentence so that he may be resentenced
pursuant to a payment plan set by the district court. Ward argues
that the district court improperly delegated authority for setting
the payment schedule for his financial obligations to the Bureau of
Prisons (BOP) and the U.S. Probation Office.
The district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain Ward’s
motion, and his argument that the district court improperly
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
delegated authority with respect to his fine has no basis in fact.
See United States v. Hatten,
167 F.3d 884, 886-87 (5th Cir. 1999).
Therefore, the district court’s order is VACATED and this case is
REMANDED with instructions to enter an order dismissing the motion
for lack of jurisdiction.
VACATED and REMANDED.
2