Case ID: f-appx_250/html/0106-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Morris D. HAUGHTON, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 07-20023
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Oct. 9, 2007.
    Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Following the revocation of his supervised release due to his conviction for making a false statement in an application for a U.S. passport by knowingly presenting a fraudulent Louisiana birth certificate, Morris D. Haughton moved the district court “[T]o Order Government to Release Appellant’s Louisiana Birth Certificate to U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Agency.” The district court summarily denied the motion.

Haughton conclusionally argues that the district court erred in failing to order the Government to release his Louisiana birth certifícate to immigration officials. He asserts, without addressing the jury’s or district court’s findings to the contrary, that he is in fact a U.S. citizen and that he requires a copy of his original Louisiana birth certificate to prove the same and to avoid deportation.

Haughton provides no legitimate legal basis for his motion or for his contention that the district court’s denial amounts to error. As the Government points out, because Haughton is a Jamaican citizen and because the Louisiana birth certificate is fraudulent, having provided the basis for both his criminal conviction and the revocation of his supervised release, the motion for its release was essentially a request to enable Haughton to once again attempt falsely to establish U.S. citizenship. The district court did not err in denying the motion. The instant appeal is wholly without merit and is dismissed as frivolous. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2; Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.1983). Haughton’s motion to expedite the appeal is denied.

APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION DENIED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.