USA v. Bertram, No. 08-11079 (5th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 08-11076 c/w No. 08-11078 & No. 08-11079 Summary Calendar July 21, 2009 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. ERIC NELSON BERTRAM, Defendant-Appellant Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 2:86-CR-36, No. 2:82-CR-5-ALL, and No. 2:86-CR-30-ALL Before DAVIS, GARZA and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Eric Nelson Bertram, federal prisoner # 12204-077, seeks this court s authorization to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in three appeals. Because each appeal presents the same issue, we ORDER case no. 08-11076, case no. 0811078, and case no. 08-11079 consolidated. * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 08-11076 c/w No. 08-11078 & No. 08-11079 In each case from which these consolidated appeals arose, the district court denied Bertram relief from his sentence, which he had sought under 18 U.S.C. § 3742. The district court reasoned that § 3742 applies only on direct appeal, that each of Bertram s direct appeals had been dismissed years earlier, and that consequently the district court had no jurisdiction to grant relief under § 3742. Bertram s briefs and IFP motions in this court do not address the question of the district court s jurisdiction to review his sentence under § 3742. Accordingly, Bertram is deemed to have abandoned any challenge to the denial of his IFP motions and the dismissal of his claims. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987); Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Moreover, given that Bertram presents no other meritorious challenge and that it is apparent that [the appeals] would be meritless, dismissal is proper. Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F. 3d 197, 202 n. 24 (5th Cir. 1997); see also United States v. Early, 27 F.3d 140, 142 (5th Cir. 1994) ( The provisions for modification of a sentence under § 3742 are available to a defendant only upon direct appeal of a sentence or conviction. ); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. MOTIONS TO PROCEED IFP DENIED; APPEALS DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. 2
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.
