Fairfield v. Yusuff ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                                                          United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    F I L E D
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT                  June 24, 2003
    Charles R. Fulbruge III
    Clerk
    No. 02-61030
    Conference Calendar
    DON FAIRFIELD,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    versus
    WARDEN YUSUFF; KATHLEEN HAWK SAWYER, Bureau of
    Prisons Director,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    --------------------
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Mississippi
    USDC No. 5:02-CV-117-RG
    --------------------
    Before DeMOSS, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Don Fairfield, federal prisoner # 00875-018, appeals the
    district court’s dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas
    corpus, filed pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 2241
    .     Fairfield’s petition
    stemmed from his conviction and sentence for assaulting an
    employee of the United States Postal Inspection Service with a
    deadly weapon in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 111
    .
    *
    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    that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-61030
    -2-
    The district court did not err in dismissing the petition.
    All of Fairfield’s claims pertain to alleged errors that occurred
    at or prior to sentencing, and thus are not cognizable under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2241
    .     See Pack v. Yusuff, 
    218 F.3d 448
    , 451 (5th Cir.
    2000).   Fairfield’s claims also do not satisfy the test for
    filing a 
    28 U.S.C. § 2241
     petition pursuant to the 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     savings clause.     See Henderson v. Haro, 
    282 F.3d 862
    , 863
    (5th Cir. 2002).
    This appeal is without arguable merit and is thus frivolous.
    See Howard v. King, 
    707 F.2d 215
    , 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983).
    Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED.     See 5TH CIR.
    R. 42.2.   All outstanding motions are DENIED.
    APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTIONS DENIED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 02-61030

Filed Date: 6/23/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021