U.S. v. Esquivel-Cortes

3 Citing cases

  1. U.S. v. Early

    27 F.3d 140 (5th Cir. 1994)   Cited 297 times
    Holding that a motion filed in a closed case is to be considered "a meaningless, unauthorized motion"

    The provisions for modification of a sentence under § 3742 are available to a defendant only upon direct appeal of a sentence or conviction. See Williams v. U.S., ___ U.S. ___, ___-___, 112 S.Ct. 1112, 1118-21, 117 L.Ed.2d 341 (1992); United States v. Esquivel-Cortes, 867 F.2d 830, 831 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 839, 110 S.Ct. 121, 107 L.Ed.2d 82 (1989). Early has not filed a notice of appeal from his judgment of conviction.

  2. United States v. Crinel

    CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 15-61 SECTION "E" (2) (E.D. La. Apr. 1, 2020)

    18 U.S.C. § 3742(a). United States v. Early, 27 F.3d 140, 142 (5th Cir. 1994) (citing Williams v. U.S., 503 U.S. 193 (1992); United States v. Esquivel-Cortes, 867 F.2d 830, 831 (5th Cir. 1989)). Nevertheless, Crinel's motion, though styled otherwise, is in effect a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

  3. United States v. Dorsey

    CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 11-119 SECTION "E" (5) (E.D. La. May. 8, 2019)   Cited 1 times

    18 U.S.C. § 3742(a). United States v. Early, 27 F.3d 140, 142 (5th Cir. 1994) (citing Williams v. U.S., 503 U.S. 193 (1992); United States v. Esquivel-Cortes, 867 F.2d 830, 831 (5th Cir. 1989)). IV. To the extent Dorsey brings the instant motion as a successive motion under § 2255, this Court does not have jurisdiction to consider it.