Poer v. Miles

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-51287
Summary Calendar
FREDDIE POER
Petitioner - Appellant
v.
R D MILES
Respondent - Appellee
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. A-00-CV-356-JN
--------------------
June 8, 2001
Before KING, Chief Judge, and WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Freddie Poer, federal prisoner No. 95012-080, appeals the
district court's denial without prejudice of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241
petition for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies with
the Bureau of Prisons (BOP). Poer argues that the BOP has
wrongfully denied him credit on his federal sentence for time
served in the custody of the State of Texas. A federal prisoner
must "exhaust his administrative remedies before seeking habeas
relief in federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 2241." Fuller v. Rich,
11 F.3d 61, 62 (5th Cir. 1994); see Rourke v. Thompson, 11 F.3d
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 00-51087
-2-
47, 49 (5th Cir. 1993). The record reflects that Poer had not
exhausted his administrative remedies with the BOP prior to
seeking § 2241 relief in the district court. United States v.
Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 331-35 (1992); see 28 C.F.R.
§§ 542.10-542.18. As he has failed to demonstrate extraordinary
circumstances which would warrant a waiver of the exhaustion
requirement, we AFFIRM the district court's denial of the
petition for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. See
Fuller, 11 F.3d at 62.
Poer argues on appeal that the thirty-seven month sentence
imposed for the offense of misprision of felony, 18 U.S.C. § 4,
exceeds the maximum sentence for this crime. This argument was
not raised before the district court. On appeal from habeas
corpus proceedings, we do not consider issues not raised in the
district court. See United States v. Scott, 672 F.2d 454, 455
(5th Cir. 1982).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.