Hunt v. USA

Fifth Circuit

Hunt v. USA

106 F. App'x 888

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJuly 21, 2004

Docket04-10258

StatusUnpublished

This text of 106 F. App'x 888 (Hunt v. USA) 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

Hunt v. USA, 106 F. App'x 888 (5th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

In August 2002, Doyce Elliott Hunt, federal prisoner # 18118-078, was convicted of conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine. He appeals, pro se, the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 federal habeas petition challenging that conviction. The district court denied Hunt’s petition on the basis that: Hunt admitted he had previously filed a § 2255 motion; he could not meet the requirements for filing a successive habeas petition; and his § 2241 petition was merely an attempt to circumvent those requirements.

The district court erred, however, because Hunt did not acknowledge the previous filing of a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and there is no record of Hunt having done so. Although that basis for the denial is erroneous, we may affirm on any basis supported by the record. See United States v. Real Property, 123 F.3d 312, 313 (5th Cir.1997).

Hunt’s § 2241 petition was properly denied on the ground that he failed to show that his remedy under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 was inadequate or ineffective. See Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 901 (5th Cir.2001).

AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.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

In August 2002, Doyce Elliott Hunt, federal prisoner # 18118-078, was convicted of conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine. He appeals, pro se, the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 federal habeas petition challenging that conviction. The district court denied Hunt’s petition on the basis that: Hunt admitted he had previously filed a § 2255 motion; he could not meet the requirements for filing a successive habeas petition; and his § 2241 petition was merely an attempt to circumvent those requirements.

The district court erred, however, because Hunt did not acknowledge the previous filing of a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and there is no record of Hunt having done so. Although that basis for the denial is erroneous, we may affirm on any basis supported by the record. See United States v. Real Property, 123 F.3d 312, 313 (5th Cir.1997).

Hunt’s § 2241 petition was properly denied on the ground that he failed to show that his remedy under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 was inadequate or ineffective. See Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 901 (5th Cir.2001).

AFFIRMED.

*

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)

106 F. App'x 888, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hunt-v-usa-ca5-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack