Carlos Tijerina v. Rick Thaler, Director

Fifth Circuit

Carlos Tijerina v. Rick Thaler, Director

368 F. App'x 584

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMarch 5, 2010

Docket09-10455

StatusUnpublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 368 F. App'x 584 (Carlos Tijerina v. Rick Thaler, Director) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Carlos Tijerina v. Rick Thaler, Director, 368 F. App'x 584 (5th Cir. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Carlos Tijerina, Texas prisoner # 1349165, was convicted of nine felonies involving charges related to possession of a controlled substance, forgery, and fraudulent use of identification; he was sentenced to serve 60 years in prison. He is challenging his convictions in a § 2254 proceeding that has not yet been adjudicated by the district court. This appeal concerns the district court’s denial of Tijeri-na’s motions for judicial notice and for release, and we are also presented with Tijerina’s motion requesting this court to take judicial notice under Fed.R.Evid. 201. Tijerina’s motion for judicial notice is DENIED.

Insofar as Tijerina seeks review of the district court’s denial of his motion for judicial notice, we are without jurisdiction to entertain this claim because it does not arise from an appealable order. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291, § 1292(a),(b); Fed.R.CivP. 54(b); Dardar v. Lafourche Realty Co., 849 F.2d 955, 957 (5th Cir.1988); Save the Bay, Inc. v. United States Army, 639 F.2d 1100, 1102 & n. 3 (5th Cir.1981). Consequently, Tijerina’s appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION to the extent he challenges the district court’s denial of his motion for judicial notice.

According to Tijerina, he should be released because his convictions are the result of a conspiracy by counsel and several state officials and because his incarceration is not lawful. These arguments do not suffice to show that the instant § 2254 proceedings involve extraordinary circumstances, nor has Tijerina shown that his § 2254 petition involves “substantial constitutional claims upon which he has a high probability of success.” See Calley v. Callaway, 496 F.2d 701, 702 (5th Cir.1974). We AFFIRM the district court’s denial of Tijerina’s motion seeking release.

*

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM: *

Carlos Tijerina, Texas prisoner # 1349165, was convicted of nine felonies involving charges related to possession of a controlled substance, forgery, and fraudulent use of identification; he was sentenced to serve 60 years in prison. He is challenging his convictions in a § 2254 proceeding that has not yet been adjudicated by the district court. This appeal concerns the district court’s denial of Tijeri-na’s motions for judicial notice and for release, and we are also presented with Tijerina’s motion requesting this court to take judicial notice under Fed.R.Evid. 201. Tijerina’s motion for judicial notice is DENIED.

Insofar as Tijerina seeks review of the district court’s denial of his motion for judicial notice, we are without jurisdiction to entertain this claim because it does not arise from an appealable order. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291, § 1292(a),(b); Fed.R.CivP. 54(b); Dardar v. Lafourche Realty Co., 849 F.2d 955, 957 (5th Cir.1988); Save the Bay, Inc. v. United States Army, 639 F.2d 1100, 1102 & n. 3 (5th Cir.1981). Consequently, Tijerina’s appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION to the extent he challenges the district court’s denial of his motion for judicial notice.

According to Tijerina, he should be released because his convictions are the result of a conspiracy by counsel and several state officials and because his incarceration is not lawful. These arguments do not suffice to show that the instant § 2254 proceedings involve extraordinary circumstances, nor has Tijerina shown that his § 2254 petition involves “substantial constitutional claims upon which he has a high probability of success.” See Calley v. Callaway, 496 F.2d 701, 702 (5th Cir.1974). We AFFIRM the district court’s denial of Tijerina’s motion seeking release.

*

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

368 F. App'x 584, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carlos-tijerina-v-rick-thaler-director-ca5-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack