United States v. Fields

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in United States v. Fields. Read the opinion of the Court — 72 F.3d 1200
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided March 7, 1996·No. 95-40028·Unpublished

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-40028 Conference Calendar __________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

C. W. FIELDS, also known as William T. Neilley,

Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:94-CV-260 - - - - - - - - - - February 29, 1996 Before GARWOOD, JONES, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

C.W. Fields appeals the denial of his motion filed pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He argues that the district court erred

when it sua sponte determined that he was procedurally barred

from arguing that the sentencing court was required to give him

notice of an upward departure.

Because the court's failure to give notice of intent to

upwardly depart is not an error of constitutional or

jurisdictional magnitude, see United States v. Faubion, 19 F.3d

* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. No. 95-40028 -2-

226, 233 (5th Cir. 1994), and the issue could have been raised on

direct appeal, it may not be considered on collateral review.

United States v. Capua, 656 F.2d 1033, 1037 (5th Cir. 1981).

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

United States v. Fields, (5th Cir. 1996).

United States v. Fields (United States v. Fields) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Robert E. Capua
656 F.2d 1033 (Fifth Circuit, 1981)