Westine v. Scott

Eleventh Circuit

Westine v. Scott

369 F. App'x 979

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

DecidedMarch 23, 2010

DocketNo. 09-12647

StatusPublished

This text of 369 F. App'x 979 (Westine v. Scott) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Westine v. Scott, 369 F. App'x 979 (11th Cir. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Petitioner/Appellant John G. Westine, proceeding pro se, appeals the denial of his motion for a status hearing on his amended “writ of habeas corpus under the savings clause.” Westine argues that he is actually innocent of his offenses of conviction and is entitled to relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 based on the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He asserts that his claim was a properly filed § 2241 habeas petition.

“[I]ssues not briefed on appeal by a pro se litigant are deemed abandoned.” Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir.2008), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 74, 172 L.Ed.2d 67 (2008).

After reviewing the record, we conclude that Westine has abandoned any challenge to the denial of his motion for a status hearing by not raising any arguments related to it in his brief on appeal. Therefore, we affirm the denial of his motion.

AFFIRMED.

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

PER CURIAM:

Petitioner/Appellant John G. Westine, proceeding pro se, appeals the denial of his motion for a status hearing on his amended “writ of habeas corpus under the savings clause.” Westine argues that he is actually innocent of his offenses of conviction and is entitled to relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 based on the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He asserts that his claim was a properly filed § 2241 habeas petition.

“[I]ssues not briefed on appeal by a pro se litigant are deemed abandoned.” Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir.2008), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 74, 172 L.Ed.2d 67 (2008).

After reviewing the record, we conclude that Westine has abandoned any challenge to the denial of his motion for a status hearing by not raising any arguments related to it in his brief on appeal. Therefore, we affirm the denial of his motion.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

369 F. App'x 979, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/westine-v-scott-ca11-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack