United States v. Solis ( 2002 )


Menu:
  •                  IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    No. 01-21020
    Conference Calendar
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    RUMALDO SOLIS,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    --------------------
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Texas
    USDC No. H-94-CR-272-14
    --------------------
    August 20, 2002
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Rumaldo Solis, federal prisoner #66932-079, appeals the
    denial of his FED. R. CRIM. P. 12(b)(2) motion.   He has also moved
    this court to dismiss his appeal without prejudice.
    Solis challenges the indictment on the bases that it failed
    to cite the statutes under which he was indicted, it omitted the
    time parameters during which the conspiracy was alleged to have
    occurred, and it did not explicitly state the amount of drugs
    *
    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    that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-21020
    -2-
    with which he was charged.    Jurisdiction did not lie in the
    district court under Rule 12(b)(2), however, because none of
    these allegations amounts to a claim that the indictment failed
    to charge an offense.   Therefore, he was required to raise these
    alleged defects pretrial.    See FED. R. CRIM. P. 12(b)(2); United
    States v. Freeman, 
    619 F.2d 1112
    , 1118 (5th Cir. 1980)
    (contention that the indictment lacked the specificity required
    by the Sixth Amendment was waived by failure to object before
    trial).
    Solis's motion to dismiss the indictment was thus
    unauthorized and without a jurisdictional basis.     See United
    States v. Early, 
    27 F.3d 140
    , 142 (5th Cir. 1994) (noting that
    district court should have dismissed unauthorized postconviction
    motion for lack of jurisdiction).    This appeal is without
    arguable merit and therefore dismissed as frivolous.     See Howard
    v. King, 
    707 F.2d 215
    , 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
    APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL DENIED.