United States v. Scott

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
June 3, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-10921
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
FERRELL DAMON SCOTT,
Defendant-
Appellant.
--------------------------------------------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:00-CR-141-1-G
--------------------------------------------------------
Before JONES, STEWART and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Ferrell Damon Scott pleaded guilty and was convicted of theft of interstate shipment and
aiding and abetting in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 659. He appeals the district court’s denial of his
motions to dismiss his indictment for violation of the Speedy Trial Act and impermissible post-
indictment prosecutorial delay in violation of the Sixth Amendment.
The district court denied the motions as untimely pursuant to FED. R. CRIM. P. 12(c) and (f)
and alternatively on the merits. Scott does not address or contest the district court’s procedural

-- 1 of 2 --

-2-
ruling in his brief. This court “will not raise and discuss legal issues that [Scott] has failed to assert.”
Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Therefore,
because Scott has not addressed the procedural issue, he has thus abandoned this issue on appeal.
E.g., Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Additionally, because the procedural
ruling presents an independent, unchallenged basis for affirming the district court’s decision, we
affirm the dismissal on the procedural ground noted by the district court and need not analyze the
underlying merits of Scott’s motions. Cf. Walker v. Thompson, 214 F.3d 615, 624-25 (5th Cir.
2000) (district court dismissed claim on procedural ground and on merits; although procedural ruling
was in error, failure to brief district court’s decision regarding merits constituted abandonment on
appeal, and dismissal was affirmed).
The judgment of the district court is therefore AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --