Walker v. Kastner

Fifth Circuit

Walker v. Kastner

195 F. App'x 290

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedAugust 28, 2006

Docket05-41306

StatusUnpublished

This text of 195 F. App'x 290 (Walker v. Kastner) 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

Walker v. Kastner, 195 F. App'x 290 (5th Cir. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

John Dee Walker, federal inmate #23826-077, has filed a motion in this court to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. Walker has also filed two motions seeking leave to file supplemental briefs on appeal; those two motions are denied.

Walker’s claim that 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b) required the Bureau of Prisons to award him 54 days of credit, in advance, for each year of imprisonment that the district court imposed is foreclosed. See Moreland v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 431 F.3d 180, 186 (5th Cir.2005), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 126 S.Ct. 1906, 164 L.Ed.2d 583 (2006). Moreover, Walker’s contention that the application of its interpretation of § 3624(b) to him violates the Ex Post Facto Clause is without merit. As he admits, the Bureau of Prisons has applied § 3624(b)(1) consistently since before Walker was sentenced.

IFP DENIED; LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFS DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.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

John Dee Walker, federal inmate #23826-077, has filed a motion in this court to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. Walker has also filed two motions seeking leave to file supplemental briefs on appeal; those two motions are denied.

Walker’s claim that 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b) required the Bureau of Prisons to award him 54 days of credit, in advance, for each year of imprisonment that the district court imposed is foreclosed. See Moreland v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 431 F.3d 180, 186 (5th Cir.2005), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 126 S.Ct. 1906, 164 L.Ed.2d 583 (2006). Moreover, Walker’s contention that the application of its interpretation of § 3624(b) to him violates the Ex Post Facto Clause is without merit. As he admits, the Bureau of Prisons has applied § 3624(b)(1) consistently since before Walker was sentenced.

IFP DENIED; LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFS DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

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)

195 F. App'x 290, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walker-v-kastner-ca5-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack