United States v. Hinkson

Fifth Circuit

United States v. Hinkson

72 F. App'x 972

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedAugust 20, 2003

DocketNo. 02-41632

StatusPublished

This text of 72 F. App'x 972 (United States v. Hinkson) 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.

Bluebook

United States v. Hinkson, 72 F. App'x 972 (5th Cir. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

BY THE COURT:

Owen Garth Hinkson, federal prisoner # 17785-038, has filed a motion seeking to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in his appeal from the denial of his motion seeking to withdraw his guilty plea, which he filed after his conviction became final and his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion was denied. Hinkson’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea was unauthorized. See Fed. R.Crim. P. 32(e)(2000). Hinkson’s appeal from the district court’s denial of that motion is frivolous because it lacks issues of arguable merit. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir.1983). Accordingly, his motion for IFP is DENIED. See Jackson v. Dallas Police Dep’t, 811 F.2d 260, 261 (5th Cir.1986). Because, in denying Hinkson’s IFP motion, we have determined that the instant appeal is frivolous, the appeal must be DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

IFP MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.

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

BY THE COURT:

Owen Garth Hinkson, federal prisoner # 17785-038, has filed a motion seeking to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in his appeal from the denial of his motion seeking to withdraw his guilty plea, which he filed after his conviction became final and his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion was denied. Hinkson’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea was unauthorized. See Fed. R.Crim. P. 32(e)(2000). Hinkson’s appeal from the district court’s denial of that motion is frivolous because it lacks issues of arguable merit. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir.1983). Accordingly, his motion for IFP is DENIED. See Jackson v. Dallas Police Dep’t, 811 F.2d 260, 261 (5th Cir.1986). Because, in denying Hinkson’s IFP motion, we have determined that the instant appeal is frivolous, the appeal must be DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

IFP MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 F. App'x 972, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-hinkson-ca5-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack