USA v. Andrew Parker, No. 12-50461 (5th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Case: 12-50461 Document: 00512260323 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/03/2013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 12-50461 Summary Calendar June 3, 2013 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee v. ANDREW MAXWELL PARKER, Defendant - Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:08-CR-292-1 Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Andrew Maxwell Parker, federal prisoner # 08987-424, appeals a third amended judgment, which modified, in his favor, periods of supervised release imposed pursuant to his pleading guilty to, inter alia, counts 27 and 28 of his indictment. Parker raises no issue, however, with respect to that amended judgment. E.g., Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987) (failure to brief issues relating to judgment appealed from equivalent to not appealing at all). He instead raises claims rejected by the * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 12-50461 Document: 00512260323 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/03/2013 No. 12-50461 district court in denying his related 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. (Although the § 2255 motion was denied, it prompted the judgment s being amended.) Parker, however, has not obtained the requisite certificate of appealability (COA) authorizing an appeal of those claims. The COA requirement is jurisdictional. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003). On the other hand, Parker has an appeal pending (case number 12-50628) from the denial of his § 2255 motion. The district court denied a COA. He may seek a COA from this court for that appeal. DISMISSED. 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.