Filed: Apr. 12, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-40808 Conference Calendar CURTIS RAY CARRICO, Petitioner-Appellant, versus GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION, Respondent-Appellee. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:99-CV-656 - April 11, 2001 Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Curtis Carrico, Texas prisoner number 778668, appeals the dis
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-40808 Conference Calendar CURTIS RAY CARRICO, Petitioner-Appellant, versus GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION, Respondent-Appellee. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:99-CV-656 - April 11, 2001 Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Curtis Carrico, Texas prisoner number 778668, appeals the dist..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-40808
Conference Calendar
CURTIS RAY CARRICO,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR,
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,
Respondent-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:99-CV-656
--------------------
April 11, 2001
Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Curtis Carrico, Texas prisoner number 778668, appeals the
district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition.
Carrico argues that evidence pertaining to his prior arrests and
convictions and to threats that he allegedly made to a police
officer was introduced at trial in violation of state evidentiary
laws. This state-law issue is not cognizable in this 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 petition. See Bridge v. Lynaugh,
838 F.2d 770 (5th Cir.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 00-40808
-2-
1988). Because Carrico argues an issue that is not cognizable in
this proceeding, he has not shown that he is entitled to relief.
Carrico argues other issues in his briefs. Because a
certificate of appealability was not granted on these issues, we
will not consider them. See Lackey v. Johnson,
116 F.3d 149,
151-52 (5th Cir. 1997). All of Carrico’s outstanding motions are
DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.