USA v. Mark Head, No. 18-60399 (5th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 18-60399 Document: 00514788658 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/09/2019 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 18-60399 Summary Calendar FILED January 9, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee v. MARK ANTHONY HEAD, Defendant - Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi USDC No. 4:15-CR-4-1 Before JOLLY, COSTA, and HO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Mark Anthony Head appeals the denial of a postjudgment “Emergency Motion” citing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4). He argued that Title 18 of the United States Code is void because it was not properly enacted in 1948. Rule 60 does not apply in this criminal case. See FED. R. CIV. P. 1. Moreover, there was no other basis for the Emergency Motion. See United 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. * Case: 18-60399 Document: 00514788658 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/09/2019 No. 18-60399 States v. Early, 27 F.3d 140, 141-42 (5th Cir. 1994). Head has thus “filed an unauthorized motion which the district court was without jurisdiction to entertain,” and he has “appealed from the denial of a meaningless, unauthorized motion.” Id. at 142. The appeal from the denial of the Emergency Motion is without arguable merit and therefore frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. 2 The appeal is
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
