Filed: Apr. 10, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-50876 Conference Calendar JOSEPH JOHN JACKSON, Petitioner-Appellant, versus COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS, Respondent-Appellee. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. A-00-CV-538-JN - April 10, 2001 Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Joseph John Jackson, pro se Texas prisoner # 569276, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his petition for writ of
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-50876 Conference Calendar JOSEPH JOHN JACKSON, Petitioner-Appellant, versus COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS, Respondent-Appellee. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. A-00-CV-538-JN - April 10, 2001 Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Joseph John Jackson, pro se Texas prisoner # 569276, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his petition for writ of ..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-50876
Conference Calendar
JOSEPH JOHN JACKSON,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS,
Respondent-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. A-00-CV-538-JN
--------------------
April 10, 2001
Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Joseph John Jackson, pro se Texas prisoner # 569276, appeals
the district court’s dismissal of his petition for writ of
mandamus, by which Jackson sought an order directing the Texas
Court of Criminal Appeals to enforce its own order granting Jackson
credit for time served. The district court’s determination that it
had no authority to issue a writ of mandamus was correct. See Moye
v. Clerk, DeKalb County Superior Court,
474 F.2d 1275, 1276 (5th
Cir. 1973). Jackson’s appeal presents no issue of arguable merit
and is, therefore, dismissed as frivolous. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.