Filed: Apr. 15, 2008
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED April 15, 2008 No. 06-11392 Conference Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. DAVID ANTOINE JOHNSON Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:01-CR-185-1 Before PRADO, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* David Antoine Johnson, federal prisoner # 27125-177, ap
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED April 15, 2008 No. 06-11392 Conference Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. DAVID ANTOINE JOHNSON Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:01-CR-185-1 Before PRADO, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* David Antoine Johnson, federal prisoner # 27125-177, app..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
April 15, 2008
No. 06-11392
Conference Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
DAVID ANTOINE JOHNSON
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:01-CR-185-1
Before PRADO, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
David Antoine Johnson, federal prisoner # 27125-177, appeals the district
court’s dismissal of his motion to reduce his sentence, purportedly filed pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6), (b)(1)-(2). The cited subsections do not authorize such
a motion. Because Johnson’s motion also did not fall under any of the provisions
of 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c), the motion was unauthorized and without jurisdictional
basis. See United States v. Early,
27 F.3d 140, 141-42 (5th Cir. 1994). Moreover,
*
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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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. 06-11392
it cannot be construed as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate because Johnson
has already filed at least one § 2255 motion and the current motion is subject to
the jurisdictional bar of the successive-motion provision, 28 U.S.C.
§ 2244(b)(3)(A). See United States v. Key,
205 F.3d 773, 774 (5th Cir. 2000).
AFFIRMED; MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL DENIED.
2