United States v. Mitchell ( 1995 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 95-50428
Summary Calendar
__________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JAMES B. MITCHELL,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. DR-94-CA-35
- - - - - - - - - -
November 30, 1995
Before WIENER, PARKER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
James B. Mitchell's motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis (IFP) is DENIED.
Mitchell appeals the denial of his motion for relief under 28
U.S.C. § 2255. Mitchell contends that 1) his sentence for failure
to appear at his aviation-smuggling sentencing violates the Double
Jeopardy Clause; 2) the Government breached its plea agreement with
Mitchell by refusing to move for a downward departure pursuant to
*
Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions
that have no precedential value and merely decide particular
cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes
needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal
profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published.
No. 95-50428
-2-
U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1; 3) the district court violated FED. R. CRIM. P. 11;
and 4) he received ineffective assistance of counsel.
We have reviewed the record and the district court's thorough
opinion and find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. See Jackson v.
Dallas Police Dep't, 811 F.2d 260, 261 (5th Cir. 1986).
Additionally, we decline to review Mitchell's Rule 11 contentions,
which he raises for the first time on appeal. See Varnado v.
Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991).
Finally, we have warned Mitchell that frivolous appeals may
result in sanctions against him. We impose a monetary sanction of
$50 on Mitchell and order the clerk of this court not to accept any
appellate filings from Mitchell until that monetary sanction is
paid, unless Mitchell receives the written permission of a judge of
this court.
APPEAL DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.