USA v. Juan Martinez-Ordonez

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION ORDER FILED. [10-20121 Affirmed ] Judge: JLD , Judge: EBC , Judge: JWE Mandate pull date is 11/22/2010; denying as unnecessary motion for certificate of appealability filed by Appellant Mr. Juan Carlos Martinez-Ordonez [6543980-2] [10-20121]

Download PDF
USA v. Juan Martinez-Ordonez Doc. 0 Case: 10-20121 Document: 00511249894 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/30/2010 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED N o . 10-20121 S u m m a r y Calendar September 30, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk U N IT E D STATES OF AMERICA, P la in t if f -A p p e lle e v. J U A N CARLOS MARTINEZ-ORDONEZ, D e fe n d a n t -A p p e lla n t A p p e a l from the United States District Court fo r the Southern District of Texas U S D C No. 4:08-CV-3667 B e fo r e DENNIS, CLEMENT, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* J u a n Carlos Martinez-Ordonez (Martinez), federal prisoner # 16286-179, s e e k s a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court's denial of h is motions to alter or amend its judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion. Martinez is incarcerated in connection with his conviction for conspiracy to c o m m it hostage taking of foreign nationals; aiding and abetting the hostage t a k in g of foreign nationals; and aiding and abetting the harboring of illegal a lie n s for the purpose of commercial advantage and private financial gain. 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. * Dockets.Justia.com Case: 10-20121 Document: 00511249894 Page: 2 No. 10-20121 Date Filed: 09/30/2010 A COA is required to appeal the denial of Rule 60(b) relief, except where, a s here, the purpose of the Rule 60(b) motion is only "to reinstate appellate ju r is d ic t io n over the original denial of habeas relief." Ochoa Canales v. Q u a r te r m a n , 507 F.3d 884, 888 (5th Cir. 2007). Martinez needs no COA to a p p e a l the denial of his Rule 60(b) motions, and his motion for a COA is D E N I E D as unnecessary. T h e denial of a Rule 60(b) motion is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Goel, 274 F.3d 984, 997 (5th Cir. 2001). M a r t in e z argues no error in the original judgment denying his 2255 motion. Martinez thus fails to show that the denial of his 60(b) motions challenging that ju d g m e n t was so unwarranted as to be an abuse of discretion. See Seven Elves, I n c . v. Eskenazi, 635 F.2d 396, 402 (5th Cir. 1981). A F F IR M E D . 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?