Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Jogie v. Dept of Justice, 01-20643 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 01-20643 Visitors: 17
Filed: Dec. 14, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-20643 Summary Calendar CLIFFORD JOGIE, Petitioner-Appellant, versus UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE - INS DIVISION, Respondent-Appellee. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-01-CV-446 _ December 14, 2001 Before POLITZ, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The district court’s judgment of March 26, 2001, dismissing Clifford Jogie’s application for a writ of
More
                  IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT



                                       No. 01-20643
                                     Summary Calendar




CLIFFORD JOGIE,
                                                            Petitioner-Appellant,

                                             versus

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE - INS
DIVISION,

                                                            Respondent-Appellee.
                ____________________________________________

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Southern District of Texas
                              USDC No. H-01-CV-446
                ____________________________________________
                                December 14, 2001

Before POLITZ, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*
       The district court’s judgment of March 26, 2001, dismissing Clifford Jogie’s

application for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for lack of



       *
        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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
jurisdiction is VACATED and the matter is REMANDED for further consideration
in light of INS v. St. Cyr 1 and Calcano-Martinez v. INS.2

      VACATED and REMANDED.




      1
       
121 S. Ct. 2271
, 2278-87 (2001).
      2
       
121 S. Ct. 2268
, 2270 (2001).
                                          2

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer