The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
07-40808•Conference Calendar LONNIE RWHITLEY v. PAUL KASTNER, Warden
07-40808Court of Appeals for the Fifth CircuitJun 19, 2008
* 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-40808
Conference Calendar
LONNIE R WHITLEY
Petitioner-Appellant
v.
PAUL KASTNER, Warden
Respondent-Appellee
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:07-CV-32
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Lonnie R. Whitley, federal prisoner # 04545-033, appeals the district
court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging the 420-month
sentence he received following his 1997 conviction for conspiracy to manufacture
methamphetamine, using and carrying a firearm in connection with a drug-
trafficking crime, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. He renews his
claim that he was improperly sentenced and asserts that a fundamental
miscarriage of justice will result from the failure to consider the merits of his
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
June 19, 2008
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
-- 1 of 2 --
No. 07-40808
2
claim. However, even if his brief is liberally construed, Whitley makes no
argument that the district court erred in determining that he did not meet the
criteria for raising his claims in this § 2241 petition pursuant to the savings
clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). He has thus abandoned the only issue on appeal
by failing to brief it. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993).
The appeal is without arguable merit, see Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215,
219-20 (5th Cir. 1983), and is dismissed as frivolous. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.