Barr v. USA
Barr v. USA
Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-60454 Conference Calendar
MAURICE BARR,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; JOE P. YOUNG,
Respondents-Appellees.
-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi USDC No. 1:01-CV-209-B -------------------- February 19, 2003 Before WIENER, EMILIO M. GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Maurice Barr, federal prisoner # 10460-042, pleaded guilty
to possession with intent to distribute cocaine base and
marijuana. Barr’s sentence was enhanced to life imprisonment
based upon two prior drug convictions. He filed a habeas corpus
petition under
28 U.S.C. § 2241challenging his life sentence.
The district court dismissed the petition without prejudice
because Barr filed the petition in the wrong jurisdiction. The
district court also held that it lacked jurisdiction to consider
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 02-60454 -2-
the petition as a successive
28 U.S.C. § 2255motion because Barr
had not received authorization from this court to file the
motion.
28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A).
Barr is currently incarcerated in Memphis, Tennessee. Thus,
the district court did not err in determining that the proper
court to entertain Barr’s
28 U.S.C. § 2241petition was the
district court for the Western District of Tennessee. See
Lee v. Wetzel,
244 F.3d 370, 373(5th Cir. 2001). The district
court also did not err in construing Barr’s petition as an
unauthorized successive
28 U.S.C. § 2255motion. Barr has
previously filed an unsuccessful
28 U.S.C. § 2255motion, and
the instant petition raises issues that could have been raised
previously. See In Re Cain,
137 F.3d 234, 235(5th Cir. 1998).
Because Barr did not seek authorization to file a successive
28 U.S.C. § 2255motion, the district court did not err in
holding that it lacked jurisdiction to consider a
28 U.S.C. § 2255motion. See
28 U.S.C. §§ 2255, 2244(b)(3)(A).
Accordingly, the district court’s dismissal of Barr’s federal
habeas petition is AFFIRMED.
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished