Filed: Jul. 25, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 01-50341 Summary Calendar _ RONALD R. BARRICK, Petitioner-Appellant, versus TROY WILLIAMSON, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution, La Tuna, Defendant-Appellee. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, El Paso USDC No. 00-CV-61 _ July 23, 2001 Before JOLLY, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Ronald Barrick appeals the district court’s order (1) construing Barrick’s petition
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 01-50341 Summary Calendar _ RONALD R. BARRICK, Petitioner-Appellant, versus TROY WILLIAMSON, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution, La Tuna, Defendant-Appellee. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, El Paso USDC No. 00-CV-61 _ July 23, 2001 Before JOLLY, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Ronald Barrick appeals the district court’s order (1) construing Barrick’s petition ..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 01-50341
Summary Calendar
_____________________
RONALD R. BARRICK,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
TROY WILLIAMSON, Warden,
Federal Correctional Institution, La Tuna,
Defendant-Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Western District of Texas, El Paso
USDC No. 00-CV-61
_________________________________________________________________
July 23, 2001
Before JOLLY, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Ronald Barrick appeals the district court’s order (1)
construing Barrick’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28
U.S.C. § 2241 as a motion to correct the sentence under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255; and (2) dismissing the motion for lack of jurisdiction.
Williamson’s motion to dismiss for mootness is DENIED for the
reasons stated in Port v. Heard,
764 F.2d 423, 427 (5th Cir. 1985).
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
Having reviewed Barrick’s brief, the record on appeal, and the
relevant authorities, we are convinced that the district court
committed no error. See Pack v. Yusuff,
218 F.3d 448, 451-54 (5th
Cir. 2000). The district court’s order is therefore
A F F I R M E D .