Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Barrick v. Williamson, 01-50341 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 01-50341 Visitors: 11
Filed: Jul. 25, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 01-50341 Summary Calendar _ RONALD R. BARRICK, Petitioner-Appellant, versus TROY WILLIAMSON, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution, La Tuna, Defendant-Appellee. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, El Paso USDC No. 00-CV-61 _ July 23, 2001 Before JOLLY, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Ronald Barrick appeals the district court’s order (1) construing Barrick’s petition
More
                IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                         FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

                         _____________________

                              No. 01-50341
                            Summary Calendar
                         _____________________



RONALD R. BARRICK,

                                                       Petitioner-Appellant,

                                   versus

TROY WILLIAMSON, Warden,
Federal Correctional Institution, La Tuna,


                                              Defendant-Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________

      Appeal from the United States District Court for the
                Western District of Texas, El Paso
                         USDC No. 00-CV-61
_________________________________________________________________
                           July 23, 2001
Before JOLLY, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Ronald    Barrick   appeals    the     district    court’s   order   (1)

construing Barrick’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28

U.S.C. § 2241 as a motion to correct the sentence under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255; and (2) dismissing the motion for lack of jurisdiction.

     Williamson’s motion to dismiss for mootness is DENIED for the

reasons stated in Port v. Heard, 
764 F.2d 423
, 427 (5th Cir. 1985).


     *
      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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
     Having reviewed Barrick’s brief, the record on appeal, and the

relevant authorities, we are convinced that the district court

committed no error.   See Pack v. Yusuff, 
218 F.3d 448
, 451-54 (5th

Cir. 2000).   The district court’s order is therefore

                                                 A F F I R M E D .

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer