United States v. Robinson ( 2002 )


Menu:
  •                 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    No. 01-20872
    Conference Calendar
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    GEORGE W. ROBINSON,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    --------------------
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Texas
    USDC No. H-94-CR-121-4
    --------------------
    April 10, 2002
    Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    George W. Robinson, a federal prisoner (# 08656-035),
    appeals the district court’s denial of his “Motion for Arrest
    o[f] Judgment and [to] Dismiss the Indictment,” purportedly
    pursuant to FED. RULES. CRIM. P. 12(b)(2) and 34.   He argues that
    the indictment was unconstitutional under Apprendi v. New Jersey,
    
    530 U.S. 466
    (2000), because it failed to charge a specific
    quantity of drugs.
    A Rule 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss an indictment must be made
    before trial.    United States v. Dixon, 
    273 F.3d 636
    , 642 (5th
    *
    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    this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 01-20872
    -2-
    Cir. 2001).   A Rule 34 motion for arrest of judgment must be
    filed within seven days of the entry of a guilty plea.   See
    United States v. Fagan, 
    821 F.2d 1002
    , 1012 (5th Cir. 1987).
    Insofar as Robinson’s motion may be construed as a 28 U.S.C.
    § 2255 motion to vacate his sentence, the motion would be
    successive and would require Robinson to first obtain
    certification from this court.   See United States v. Rich,
    
    141 F.3d 550
    , 551 (5th Cir. 1998); 28 U.S.C. §§ 2255, 2244(b).
    Robinson has not sought such certification.
    Because the district court was without jurisdiction to
    entertain Robinson’s “Motion for Arrest o[f] Judgment,” Robinson
    has appealed from the denial of a “meaningless, unauthorized
    motion.”   See United States v. Early, 
    27 F.3d 140
    , 142 (5th Cir.
    1994).   Because the motion should have been dismissed for lack of
    jurisdiction, the district court’s denial of Robinson’s motion is
    affirmed on this alternative basis.   See 
    id. AFFIRMED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 01-20872

Filed Date: 4/10/2002

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021