Canady v. Cockrell
Canady v. Cockrell
Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-20557 Conference Calendar
WARREN PIERRE CANADY,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
JANIE COCKRELL, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,
Respondent-Appellee.
-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-02-CV-1286 -------------------- October 29, 2002 Before DeMOSS, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Warren Pierre Canady, Texas prisoner # 723784, appeals the
district court’s denial of his
28 U.S.C. § 2241petition.
Because the claims were presented under
28 U.S.C. § 2241, a
certificate of appealability (COA) is not necessary. See Ojo v.
INS,
106 F.3d 680, 681-82(5th Cir. 1997). Canady’s motion for
leave to file a supplemental brief is GRANTED.
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. No. 02-20557 -2-
Canady asserts that he should be allowed to present claims
arising under Apprendi v. New Jersey,
530 U.S. 466(2000), in the
instant habeas petition pursuant to the savings clause of
28 U.S.C. § 2255. Because Canady is not a federal prisoner,
28 U.S.C. § 2255is inapplicable to him.
Canady’s challenge is to the length of his sentence, rather
than a challenge to the manner in which his sentence was
executed. Therefore, the claims are not properly raised under
28 U.S.C. § 2241. See United States v. Tubwell,
37 F.3d 175, 177(5th Cir. 1994). The district court did not err in concluding
that Canady had failed to present a claim upon which relief could
be granted. See Moody v. Johnson,
139 F.3d 477, 480(5th Cir.
1998). Consequently, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
AFFIRMED; COA DENIED AS UNNECESSARY; MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT
GRANTED.
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished