Filed: Aug. 23, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-10448 Conference Calendar ISAAC OLUWASOGO ALONGE, Petitioner-Appellant, versus IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent-Appellee. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:00-CV-2513-G - August 21, 2001 Before KING, Chief Judge, and POLITZ and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Isaac Oluwasogo Alonge appeals the district court’s dismissal without prejudice for lack of
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-10448 Conference Calendar ISAAC OLUWASOGO ALONGE, Petitioner-Appellant, versus IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent-Appellee. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:00-CV-2513-G - August 21, 2001 Before KING, Chief Judge, and POLITZ and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Isaac Oluwasogo Alonge appeals the district court’s dismissal without prejudice for lack of ..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-10448
Conference Calendar
ISAAC OLUWASOGO ALONGE,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,
Respondent-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:00-CV-2513-G
--------------------
August 21, 2001
Before KING, Chief Judge, and POLITZ and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Isaac Oluwasogo Alonge appeals the district court’s
dismissal without prejudice for lack of exhaustion of state-court
remedies of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Alonge has
not challenged the district court’s reason for dismissing his
petition. Accordingly, it is as if Alonge had not appealed the
judgment. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner,
813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987) (when appellant fails to
identify error in district court’s analysis, it is the same as if
appellant had not appealed judgment).
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-10448
-2-
To the extent that Alonge was attempting to challenge his
order of removal, we lack jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to
consider Alonge’s claims. See Garnica-Vasquez v. Reno,
210 F.3d
558, 560 (5th Cir. 2000).
Alonge’s appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous.
See Howard v. King,
707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983).
Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir.
R. 42.2.
APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS.