From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. Foote

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division
Jun 12, 2001
Nos. 3:97-CR-263-R (01), 3:99-CV-838-R (N.D. Tex. Jun. 12, 2001)

Summary

rejecting § 2255 claim that counsel should have moved for downward departure because case was not extraordinary

Summary of this case from Mendoza v. United States

Opinion

Nos. 3:97-CR-263-R (01), 3:99-CV-838-R.

June 12, 2001.


ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


After making the review required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the Court finds that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and they are adopted as the findings and conclusions of the Court.


Summaries of

U.S. v. Foote

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division
Jun 12, 2001
Nos. 3:97-CR-263-R (01), 3:99-CV-838-R (N.D. Tex. Jun. 12, 2001)

rejecting § 2255 claim that counsel should have moved for downward departure because case was not extraordinary

Summary of this case from Mendoza v. United States
Case details for

U.S. v. Foote

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. PHILLIP CHRISTOPHER FOOTE

Court:United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division

Date published: Jun 12, 2001

Citations

Nos. 3:97-CR-263-R (01), 3:99-CV-838-R (N.D. Tex. Jun. 12, 2001)

Citing Cases

U.S. v. Salazar

Salazar does not otherwise show that he was entitled to a downward departure at sentencing or that a…

U.S. v. Jimenez-Moreno

In United States v. Garay, 235 F.3d 230, 232-22 n. 8 (5th Cir. 2000), the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals…