Worley v. Smith

Fifth Circuit

Worley v. Smith

187 F. App'x 374

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJune 21, 2006

Docket05-51427

StatusUnpublished

This text of 187 F. App'x 374 (Worley v. Smith) 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

Worley v. Smith, 187 F. App'x 374 (5th Cir. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Danny Worley, federal prisoner # 18846-051, has filed a motion in this court to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in the appeal of the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. Worley’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 and that he has been denied a total of 68.5 days of good-time credit 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). Accordingly, Worley’s motion for leave to proceed IFP is denied, and his appeal is dismissed as frivolous. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 n. 24 (5th Cir.1997); 5th Cir. R. 42.2. His motion for the appointment of counsel is denied as moot.

IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.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

PER CURIAM: *

Danny Worley, federal prisoner # 18846-051, has filed a motion in this court to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in the appeal of the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. Worley’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 and that he has been denied a total of 68.5 days of good-time credit 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). Accordingly, Worley’s motion for leave to proceed IFP is denied, and his appeal is dismissed as frivolous. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 n. 24 (5th Cir.1997); 5th Cir. R. 42.2. His motion for the appointment of counsel is denied as moot.

IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

187 F. App'x 374, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/worley-v-smith-ca5-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack