Filed: Dec. 30, 2005
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED _ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT December 30, 2005 No. 05-13605 THOMAS K. KAHN Non-Argument Calendar CLERK _ D. C. Docket No. 03-00381-CV-OC-10-GRJ RICHARD MORRISON, Petitioner-Appellant, versus PAUL LAIRD, Respondent-Appellee. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida _ (December 30, 2005) Before TJOFLAT, ANDERSON and BIRCH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: The distri
Summary: [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED _ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT December 30, 2005 No. 05-13605 THOMAS K. KAHN Non-Argument Calendar CLERK _ D. C. Docket No. 03-00381-CV-OC-10-GRJ RICHARD MORRISON, Petitioner-Appellant, versus PAUL LAIRD, Respondent-Appellee. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida _ (December 30, 2005) Before TJOFLAT, ANDERSON and BIRCH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: The distric..
More
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
December 30, 2005
No. 05-13605
THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 03-00381-CV-OC-10-GRJ
RICHARD MORRISON,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
PAUL LAIRD,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(December 30, 2005)
Before TJOFLAT, ANDERSON and BIRCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
The district court, on June 14, 2005, dismissed with prejudice petitioner’s 28
U.S.C. § 2241 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Record, Vol. 2 at Tab 32. The
court dismissed the petition because it “simply reassert[ed] an argument that was
raised and rejected on direct appeal and in [petitioner’s] subsequent [28 U.S.C.] §
2255 and other collateral proceedings.”
Id.
Petitioner now appeals the court’s decision. We find no merit in his petition
for the reasons stated in the district court’s June 14 order.
AFFIRMED.
2