United States v. Kovar-Chappell

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 03-10328
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
KIMBERLY KOVAR-CHAPPELL,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:03-CR-2-ALL-G
--------------------
Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Kimberly Kovar-Chappell appeals from the magistrate judge’s
order detaining her pending trial and the district court’s order
finding her to be mentally incompetent to stand trial and
committing her to the custody of the Attorney General for
hospitalization and treatment under 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d).
Because this court lacks jurisdiction to review a magistrate
judge’s order, we may not consider Kovar-Chappell’s appeal of the
order of detention. See United States v. Renfro, 620 F.2d 497,

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 03-10328
-2-
500 (5th Cir. 1980). Kovar-Chappell’s notice of appeal would be
timely to challenge the district court’s order of commitment if
she deposited it in the institution’s mailing system on the date
that she affixed to it. See FED. R. APP. P. 4(c). We need not
remand for a finding on timeliness, however, because the appeal
is frivolous. See United States v. Alvarez, 210 F.3d 309, 310
(5th Cir. 2000).
Kovar-Chappell argues that: (1) the sentence imposed was
illegal because the indictment was defective, the grand jury was
not truly empaneled in her case, and her alleged crime was within
the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tax Division of the U.S.
Department of Justice; (2) the trial court clearly erred by
incorrectly applying the Sentencing Guidelines to her sentence
and by allowing the magistrate judge to preside over the rulings
in her case; and (3) the district court erred by not admitting a
probate document as prima facie evidence of her mental
competency. Her first two arguments are not relevant to a
challenge to an order of commitment. Her third argument lacks
arguable merit because it is conclusional and refers to a
document outside the record.
Kovar-Chappell has failed to argue anything that would show
that the district court erred by finding her to be mentally
incompetent to stand trial and committing her to the custody of
the Attorney General for hospitalization and treatment under 18
U.S.C. § 4241. See United States v. Doke, 171 F.3d 240, 247 (5th

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 03-10328
-3-
Cir. 1999). As the appeal lacks arguable merit, it is frivolous.
See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983).
Accordingly, the instant appeal is DISMISSED.

-- 3 of 3 --