Filed: May 15, 2002
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-20785 Summary Calendar LINDSEY EVERETT HOLLOWAY, Petitioner-Appellant, versus JANIE COCKRELL, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION, Respondent-Appellee. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-01-CV-1659 - - - - - - - - - - May 14, 2002 Before DeMOSS, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Lindsey Everett Holloway, T
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-20785 Summary Calendar LINDSEY EVERETT HOLLOWAY, Petitioner-Appellant, versus JANIE COCKRELL, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION, Respondent-Appellee. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-01-CV-1659 - - - - - - - - - - May 14, 2002 Before DeMOSS, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Lindsey Everett Holloway, Te..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-20785
Summary Calendar
LINDSEY EVERETT HOLLOWAY,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
JANIE COCKRELL, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL
JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,
Respondent-Appellee.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-01-CV-1659
- - - - - - - - - -
May 14, 2002
Before DeMOSS, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Lindsey Everett Holloway, Texas prisoner #287889, was
granted a certificate of appealability (COA) by this court on the
issue whether his claim that he is entitled to release to
mandatory supervision based upon his having served a total of
approximately 62 years, including good time, on his 99-year
sentence, was improperly dismissed as successive. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253. Holloway has shown that the district court erred in
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-20785
-2-
dismissing his failure-to-release claim as successive, and
respondent concedes that the claim is not successive. See In re
Cain,
137 F.3d 234, 236-37 (5th Cir. 1998). Accordingly, the
district court’s dismissal of Holloway’s failure-to-release claim
as successive is VACATED, and this case is REMANDED for
consideration of the merits of that claim.
Holloway’s motions (1) for leave to file an out-of-time
motion to reconsider the denial of COA, and (2) to supplement his
out-of-time motion to reconsider the denial of COA are DENIED.
VACATED AND REMANDED; PETITIONER’S MOTIONS DENIED.