United States v. Tran ( 2002 )


Menu:
  •                IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    ___________________
    No. 00-20901
    Summary Calendar
    ___________________
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    NHAN KHIEM TRAN, also known as Tony Tran,
    also known as Larry Tran,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    --------------------
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Texas
    USDC No. H-00-CV-1686
    USDC No. H-89-CR-135-2
    --------------------
    April 1, 2002
    Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Nhan Khiem Tran (“Tran”), federal prisoner # 48684-079,
    appeals the district court’s denial of his motion filed pursuant
    to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).   Tran argues that the district court
    erred in determining that Dirks was authorized to sign his motion
    filed pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     as Tran’s authorized agent
    because Dirks does not qualify as Tran’s next friend.     Even
    assuming that the district court erred when it determined that
    *
    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    that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 00-20901
    - 2 -
    Dirks was Tran’s agent,“[i]t is not enough that the granting of
    [Rule 60(b) relief] might have been permissible, or even
    warranted--denial must have been so unwarranted as to constitute
    an abuse of discretion.”    Seven Elves, Inc. v. Eskenazi, 
    635 F.2d 396
    , 402 (5th Cir. 1981).    Tran did not demonstrate in his Rule
    60(b) motion, nor does he show on appeal, that he was prejudiced
    in any particular way by Dirks signing Tran’s name to the motion.
    Thus, he fails to show that the district court’s denial of his
    Rule 60(b) motion was an abuse of discretion.
    Tran also argues that Judge Hughes should be recused from
    his case.   This court will not address this argument because the
    COA was granted only on the issue discussed above.    See Lackey v.
    Johnson, 
    116 F.3d 149
    , 151-152 (5th Cir. 1997).
    The motion to supplement the record is moot in light of the
    opinion.
    AFFIRMED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 00-20901

Filed Date: 4/2/2002

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/21/2014