United States v. Johnson
United States v. Johnson
Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-50053 Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
SKIRVIN GEORGE JOHNSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. A-90-CR-191-ALL -------------------- October 7, 2002
Before JONES, STEWART and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Skirvin George Johnson appeals the district court’s
denial of his petition for a writ of coram nobis. Johnson argues
that: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions;
(2) the district court judge was prejudiced against him throughout
the criminal proceedings, and his order has affected Johnson’s
right to a fair review in the deportation proceedings; (3) the
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 02-50053 -2-
district court did not make fact findings or provide sufficient
reasons for denying his petition for a writ of coram nobis; and (4)
the Government knowingly presented false evidence at his trial.
Johnson challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to support his
convictions in his previous
28 U.S.C. § 2255motion; the district
court denied this motion and this court denied Johnson’s motion for
a certificate of appealability. Johnson could have raised the
other issues in his previous
28 U.S.C. § 2255motion, but failed to
do so. Johnson has not shown that the district court erred in not
making fact findings or in not providing sufficient reasons for
denying his petition for a writ of coram nobis. Johnson has not
shown that any error occurred, much less that the alleged errors
were of sufficient magnitude to justify the extraordinary relief of
a writ of coram nobis. See
28 U.S.C. § 1651(a); Jimenez v.
Trominski,
91 F.3d 767, 768(5th Cir. 1996). Therefore, he has not
shown that the district court erred in denying his petition for a
writ of coram nobis. See
28 U.S.C. § 1651(a); Jimenez,
91 F.3d at 768.
AFFIRMED.
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished