U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 1970

Thomas Robinson Buel, Jr. v. J. E. Bill Decker

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Decided July 17, 1970 · Dyer, Gewin, Goldberg, Per Curiam

429 F.2d 1314; 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 8106 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Thomas Robinson Buel, Jr., pro se., Henry Wade, Dist. Atty., Dallas County, John B. Tolle, Asst. Dist. Atty., Dallas, Tex., for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

6 later published cases cite this decision. The 5 that cite it most often are listed here.

Crist v. Clifford (United States District Court for the District of Idaho 2024)
Whelan v. Noelle (District Court, D. Oregon 1997)
Landrum v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (District Court, E.D. Kentucky 1974)
Eddie Fuller v. State of Florida (5th Cir. 1973)
Julius Dwaine Perry, Sr. v. Clarence Jones, Sheriff, Dallas County, Texas (5th Cir. 1971)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This appeal is taken from an order of the district court denying habeas corpus relief after holding an evidentiary hearing. We affirm. 1

Appellant is presently free on bond pending extradition procedures by the State of Texas instituted upon a request from the State of Illinois. Prior to being released on bond, appellant was confined in the Dallas County jail.

After holding an evidentiary hearing, the court below found (1) that appellant had applied for habeas corpus relief in the Texas trial court asserting the same grounds for relief, (2) that an evidentiary hearing had been held, and (3) that relief had been denied. The court below further found that an appeal from the state habeas corpus proceeding was pending in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. The district court therefore denied relief for failure to exhaust state remedies. We agree. 28 U.S.C. § 2254; Perry v. Decker, 5 Cir. 1969, 415 F.2d 773; Wilson v. Beto, 5 Cir. 1969, 415 F.2d 774; Bruce v. Beto, 5 Cir. 1968, 396 F.2d 212. The judgment below is affirmed.

Affirmed.

. It is appropriate to dispose of this pro se ease summarily, pursuant to this Court’s local Buie 9(c) (2), appellant having failed to file a brief within the time fixed by Rule 31, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Kimbrough v. Beto, Director, 5th Cir.1969, 412 F.2d 981.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.