Hood v. Quarterman

281 F. App'x 394
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Hood v. Quarterman. Read the opinion of the Court — 285 F. App'x 200
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided June 16, 2008·No. 08-70022·Unpublished

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Charles Hood appeals an order of the district court, entered June 6, 2008, denying his motion for appointment of counsel and his motion for stay of execution. In his merits brief, Hood raises only the following issue: “Does the federal appointment statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3599, provide prisoners sentenced under state law the right to federally appointed and funded counsel to pursue clemency under state law?”

In his brief, Hood “acknowledges that the law of this Circuit has foreclosed the issue.” He is correct that in Clark v. Johnson, 278 F.3d 459, 462-63 (5th Cir. 2002), this court held that the statute does not apply to state clemency proceedings.

The order of the district court is accordingly AFFIRMED. Hood’s separate motion for stay of execution filed in this court is DENIED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.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

Hood v. Quarterman, 281 F. App'x 394 (5th Cir. 2008).

281 F. App'x 394 (Hood v. Quarterman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Clark v. Johnson
278 F.3d 459 (Fifth Circuit, 2002)