Castro-Alvarez v. Dobre
Castro-Alvarez v. Dobre
Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-40903 Summary Calendar
ALFREDO CASTRO-ALVAREZ,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
J. DOBRE, Warden,
Respondent-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
(USDC No. 1:02-CV-343)
December 4, 2002
Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Alfredo Castro-Alvarez (“Castro”), federal prisoner # 00612-
196, appeals the denial of his
28 U.S.C. § 2241petition for writ
of habeas corpus. In his petition, Castro alleged that his
169-month sentence for conspiring to possess heroin with intent to
distribute was so excessive as to constitute cruel and unusual
punishment. Castro asserts that the district court erred when it
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. denied his petition without allowing him to file a supporting
memorandum. Castro’s argument is inconsistent with the plain
language of
28 U.S.C. § 2243, which authorizes a denial of a
petition for a writ of habeas corpus when it appears from the
application that the applicant is not entitled to the writ.
Castro’s allegation in his petition is a claim that the sentence
originally imposed is unconstitutional, and thus Castro has not
shown that the district court erred in concluding that Castro was
attempting to use his
28 U.S.C. § 2241petition as a means of
obtaining
28 U.S.C. § 2255relief. See Ojo v. INS,
106 F.3d 680, 683(5th Cir. 1997). Castro has also not shown that the district
court erred in concluding that Castro had not met the requirements
of
28 U.S.C. § 2255's savings clause and therefore that Castro was
not entitled to relief pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Reyes-
Requena v. United States,
243 F.3d 893, 901(5th Cir. 2001).
Because the district court correctly concluded that Castro was not
entitled to relief, the district court properly denied Castro’s
petition. See
28 U.S.C. § 2243.
The judgment of the district court is therefore AFFIRMED.
2
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished