United States v. Haney , 285 F. App'x 153 ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •            IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT  United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    July 21, 2008
    No. 07-10898
    Summary Calendar                   Charles R. Fulbruge III
    Clerk
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
    Plaintiff-Appellee
    v.
    JAMES HOWARD HANEY
    Defendant-Appellant
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Texas
    USDC No. 4:92-CR-61-3
    Before KING, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    James Howard Haney, federal prisoner # 22122-077, pleaded guilty to
    possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute and was sentenced as
    a career offender to 360 months in prison. He appeals the district court’s denial
    of his petition for a writ of audita querela, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), in
    which he asserted that the district court wrongly found him to be a career
    offender under the Sentencing Guidelines in light of United States v. Cheramie,
    
    51 F.3d 538
    (5th Cir. 1995). Haney has not established that his Cheramie claim
    *
    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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
    No. 07-10898
    constitutes a “gap” in the federal postconviction structure warranting the
    extraordinary writ. See United States v. Banda, 
    1 F.3d 354
    , 356 (5th Cir. 1993);
    United States v. Reyes, 
    945 F.2d 862
    , 865 & n.5 (5th Cir. 1991); see also Kinder
    v. Purdy, 
    222 F.3d 209
    , 211-14 (5th Cir. 2000). The judgment of the district
    court is AFFIRMED.
    Haney also asks this court to recall the mandate on his direct appeal so
    that he may raise his Cheramie claim. Because Haney did not argue on direct
    appeal that his underlying conspiracy conviction cannot serve as a predicate
    offense for a career offender finding under the Guidelines, he is not entitled to
    a recall of the mandate. See In re Kunkle, 
    398 F.3d 683
    , 685 n.2 (5th Cir. 2005).
    Haney’s motion is thus DENIED. Haney’s motion for appointment of counsel is
    likewise DENIED.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-10898

Citation Numbers: 285 F. App'x 153

Judges: King, Dennis, Owen

Filed Date: 7/21/2008

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024