Filed: Nov. 12, 2003
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS November 12, 2003 FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 03-50579 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus KARL ANTHONY GONZALES, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. SA-91-CR-436-ALL Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Karl Anthony Gonzales, federal prisone
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS November 12, 2003 FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 03-50579 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus KARL ANTHONY GONZALES, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. SA-91-CR-436-ALL Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Karl Anthony Gonzales, federal prisoner..
More
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS November 12, 2003
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-50579
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
KARL ANTHONY GONZALES,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. SA-91-CR-436-ALL
Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Karl Anthony Gonzales, federal prisoner # 57726-080,
appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for a nunc pro
tunc judgment to amend his 1992 judgment of conviction with an
order that his federal sentence run concurrently with his state
sentence. He sought credit toward his federal sentence for time
served on his subsequently imposed state sentence.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
Gonzales’s motion was an unauthorized one over which the
district court did not have jurisdiction. See United States v.
Early,
27 F.3d 140, 141-42 (5th Cir. 1994). The denial of the
motion was correct.
Id. Gonzales’s request for the appointment of
counsel is DENIED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.
2