Filed: Feb. 12, 2003
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 02-10473 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus BONIFACE SULEMAN ODIODIO, also known as Boniface Odiodio Suleman, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:99-CR-236-2-D - February 12, 2003 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Boniface Suleman Odiodio was convicted of wire fraud and money laundering
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 02-10473 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus BONIFACE SULEMAN ODIODIO, also known as Boniface Odiodio Suleman, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:99-CR-236-2-D - February 12, 2003 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Boniface Suleman Odiodio was convicted of wire fraud and money laundering ..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-10473
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
BONIFACE SULEMAN ODIODIO, also known as Boniface
Odiodio Suleman,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:99-CR-236-2-D
--------------------
February 12, 2003
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Boniface Suleman Odiodio was convicted of wire fraud and
money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1343, and 1957.
Odiodio appeals from the district court’s order denying his Rule
35 motion for correction or reduction of sentence and his Rule 36
motion for correction of clerical error. In addition, Odiodio
appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his civil rights
claim. Odiodio has shown no entitlement to relief. See United
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-10473
-2-
States v. Lopez,
26 F.3d 512, 518-19 (5th Cir. 1994); United
States v. Massey,
827 F.2d 995, 1005 n.1 (5th Cir. 1987); see
also Heck v. Humphrey,
512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994).
The order of the district court is AFFIRMED. All
outstanding motions are DENIED.