Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Martin GUTIERREZ, also known as Felipe Cornejo, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-11-29
Citations: 451 F. App'x 457
Docket Number: No. 11-40366
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Martin GUTIERREZ, also known as Felipe Cornejo, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before BARKSDALE, STEWART, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 451
Pages: 457–458

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Martin GUTIERREZ, also known as Felipe Cornejo, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-40366
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Nov. 29, 2011.
Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Jose C. Castillo, Esq., Houston, TX, for Defendanl>-Appellant.
Before BARKSDALE, STEWART, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Martin Gutierrez challenges the order striking his petition for reimbursement of attorney's fees under the Hyde Amendment. The district court struck the petition because Gutierrez's counsel failed to include in it his federal-identification num ber, in accordance with Southern District of Texas Local Civil Rule 11.3A(4). Gutierrez contends the district court should have waived application of the local rule in the interest of justice. (Gutierrez filed a corrected petition after the first petition was denied, but this corrected petition was denied as untimely. He does not challenge that ruling.)
A district court's application of local rules is reviewed for abuse of discretion. E.g., Victor F. v. Pasadena Indep. Sch. Dist., 793 F.2d 633, 635 (5th Cir.1986). Absent "impelling reasons", local rules should not be ignored. Id. Gutierrez offers no justifiable reason — much less an impelling one — for not applying the local rules in this instance. Accordingly, Gutierrez has not shown that striking the petition was an inappropriate exercise of the court's discretion. See id. at 636.
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.