United States v. Caballero
This text of United States v. Caballero (United States v. Caballero) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-30277 Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ALVARO GERMAN SALGADO CABALLERO,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 89-CR-452-5-A - - - - - - - - - -
June 17, 1999
Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Alvara German Salgado Caballero, federal inmate # 21378-034,
appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion
purportedly filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)(2). Caballero
argues that his sentence was improperly enhanced because the
Government did not comply with 21 U.S.C. § 851(a)(1). Caballero
argues for the first time that the district court should have
reduced his offense level for being a minor participant.
As the district court noted, § 3742(a)(2) does not authorize
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 98-30277 -2-
the relief that Caballero seeks. 18 U.S.C. § 3742; see United
States v. Early, 27 F.3d 140, 142 (5th Cir. 1994) (the
“provisions for modification of a sentence under § 3742 are
available to a defendant only upon direct appeal of a sentence or
conviction”). Caballero’s arguments sound under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255; however, as Caballero has filed at least one prior motion
for § 2255 relief and has not obtained this court’s authorization
to file a second or successive § 2255 motion, the district court
did not err by failing to construe his claims under § 2255. The
district court properly dismissed Caballero’s motion for lack of
jurisdiction. The district court’s denial of the motion is
AFFIRMED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
United States v. Caballero, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-caballero-ca5-1999.