IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
___________________
No. 96-50055
Summary Calendar
___________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
LIGIA BALU, also known as Rita Dimici,
also known as Rita Dimuci, also known as
Sanel Stolzenberg, also known as
Chanel Stolzenberg, also known as
Chanel Solzenberg, also known as Sanel
Solzenberg, also known as Lidia Balu,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Western District of Texas
USDC No. SA-90-CR-43-1
________________________________________________
April 8, 1996
Before GARWOOD, WIENER and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Ligia Balu appeals the district court’s denial of her motion
for modification of probation. Balu argues that the district court
violated Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1(b) by not holding a hearing on her
motion to terminate probation. Rule 32.1(b) requires a hearing
only if the proposed relief is not favorable to the defendant. In
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 Local Rule 47.5.4.
this case, the proposed relief was favorable. That favorable
relief was not granted does not mandate a hearing under Rule
32.1(b). Balu has shown no reversible error in the district
court’s denial of what is at least her third motion to terminate
her probation. This court affirmed the denial of an earlier such
motion by Balu on January 25, 1995. Balu’s most recent previous
motion was denied August 25, 1995, and reconsideration was denied
September 1, 1995; no appeal was taken. Instead, the instant
motion, asserting essentially the same grounds, was filed September
28, 1995. The district court clearly proceeded on the assumption
that it had jurisdiction to grant the relief sought, and we also so
assume (arguendo).
Balu’s motion for expedited hearing is denied as unnecessary.
AFFIRMED.
2