Filed: Feb. 25, 2002
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-30733 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus MICHAEL BELL, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 93-CR-30033-2 - February 21, 2002 Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Michael Bell, federal prisoner #23819-044, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 1651 petition. “The All W
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-30733 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus MICHAEL BELL, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 93-CR-30033-2 - February 21, 2002 Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Michael Bell, federal prisoner #23819-044, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 1651 petition. “The All Wr..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-30733
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MICHAEL BELL,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 93-CR-30033-2
--------------------
February 21, 2002
Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Michael Bell, federal prisoner #23819-044, appeals the
district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 1651 petition.
“The All Writs Act [28 U.S.C. § 1651(a)] is a residual source of
authority to issue writs that are not otherwise covered by
statute. Where a statute specifically addresses the particular
issue at hand, it is that authority, and not the All Writs Act,
that is controlling.” Carlisle v. United States,
517 U.S. 416,
429 (1996) (internal citation and quotation omitted). The proper
vehicle for attacking errors that occurred during or before
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-30733
-2-
sentencing is a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. See Reyes-Requena v.
United States,
243 F.3d 893, 901 (5th Cir. 2001). Bell is
attacking the validity of his conviction and is currently still
incarcerated; therefore 28 U.S.C. § 1651 is not controlling.
The decision of the district court is AFFIRMED.