United States v. Glaze

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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
May 25, 1999
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-21025
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
IRENE WILSON GLAZE,
also known as Irene Flakes,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-92-CR-59-ALL
- - - - - - - - - -
Before KING, Chief Judge, POLITZ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Irene Wilson Glaze, now federal prisoner No. 59783-079,
appeals from the district court’s denial of her motion filed
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582 and she moves this court for
appointment of counsel on appeal. The motion for counsel is
DENIED. Glaze argues that the district court lacked the
authority to sentence her pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 860 because she

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 97-21025
-2-
was not convicted of violating that statute and she suggests, for
the first time on appeal, that her conviction and sentence
violate principles of due process because the Government did not
comply with the district court’s pretrial instruction to file
periodic medical reports on Glaze’s mental condition.
Section 3582 does not authorize the district court to grant
the relief that Glaze seeks. 18 U.S.C. § 3582; see United States
v. Early, 27 F.3d 140, 141-42 (5th Cir. 1994). Glaze’s arguments
sound under 28 U.S.C. § 2255; however, as Glaze has filed a prior
motion for § 2255 relief and has not obtained this court’s
authorization to file a second or successive § 2255 motion, the
district court did not err by failing to construe her claims
under § 2255. Glaze’s motion should have been dismissed for lack
of jurisdiction. On that basis, the district court’s denial of
the motion is AFFIRMED. We note that the arguments that Glaze
advances on appeal do not meet the standard required for this
court to authorize the filing of a second or successive § 2255
motion. See § 2255.
AFFIRMED; MOTION FOR COUNSEL DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --