Filed: Jan. 31, 2006
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS January 31, 2006 TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court ROBERT C. GARNETT, SR., Petitioner-Appellant, No. 05-1248 v. (District of Colorado) (D.C. No. 05-Z-422) GARY GOLDER, Warden, Respondent-Appellee. ORDER Before BRISCOE, LUCERO and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. Appellant, Robert C. Garnett, filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on May 24, 2005, challenging the calcul
Summary: FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS January 31, 2006 TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court ROBERT C. GARNETT, SR., Petitioner-Appellant, No. 05-1248 v. (District of Colorado) (D.C. No. 05-Z-422) GARY GOLDER, Warden, Respondent-Appellee. ORDER Before BRISCOE, LUCERO and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. Appellant, Robert C. Garnett, filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on May 24, 2005, challenging the calcula..
More
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
January 31, 2006
TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
ROBERT C. GARNETT, SR.,
Petitioner-Appellant,
No. 05-1248
v. (District of Colorado)
(D.C. No. 05-Z-422)
GARY GOLDER, Warden,
Respondent-Appellee.
ORDER
Before BRISCOE, LUCERO and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
Appellant, Robert C. Garnett, filed an application for a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on May 24, 2005, challenging the
calculation of his statutory discharge date. The district court concluded Garnett
had failed to exhaust his state remedies and dismissed the application. Garnett
now seeks a certificate of appealability (“COA”) to enable him to appeal the
district court’s dismissal of his § 2241 application. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
Garnett’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is granted .
The brief Garnett filed with this court indicates he is no longer
incarcerated. Accordingly, Garnett was ordered to show cause as to why his
application for a COA should not be dismissed as moot. See Spencer v. Kemna ,
523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998). After reviewing the entire record on appeal, including
Garnett’s response to the order to show cause, this court concludes that the
application for COA is moot. Accordingly, we dismiss Garnett’s appeal.
Entered for the Court
ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk
By
Deputy Clerk
-2-