Fourstar v. Outlaw

Fifth Circuit

Fourstar v. Outlaw

283 F. App'x 211

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJune 19, 2008

Docket07-41023

StatusUnpublished

This text of 283 F. App'x 211 (Fourstar v. Outlaw) 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

Fourstar v. Outlaw, 283 F. App'x 211 (5th Cir. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Thomas Ciprano, federal prisoner #23148-034, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging his life sentence as a career offender following his 1992 conviction on drug-trafficking charges. 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 claim. However, even if his brief is liberally construed, Ciprano 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. The instant petition and appeal are continuations of Ciprano’s repetitious filings in an attempt to circumvent the requirements for filing a successive § 2255 motion. Ciprano is warned that any future frivolous or repetitive filings will subject him to sanctions.

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.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: *

Thomas Ciprano, federal prisoner #23148-034, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging his life sentence as a career offender following his 1992 conviction on drug-trafficking charges. 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 claim. However, even if his brief is liberally construed, Ciprano 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. The instant petition and appeal are continuations of Ciprano’s repetitious filings in an attempt to circumvent the requirements for filing a successive § 2255 motion. Ciprano is warned that any future frivolous or repetitive filings will subject him to sanctions.

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

*

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)

283 F. App'x 211, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fourstar-v-outlaw-ca5-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack