Case ID: f-appx_386/html/0491-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jeff H. WILLIAMSON, Petitioner-Appellant v. Warden Joe D. DRIVER, Warden, Houston FDC, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 10-20085
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    July 16, 2010.
    Jeff H. Williamson, Houston, TX, pro se.
    Before DAVIS, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

On December 16, 2009, Jeff H. Williamson filed a pretrial 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in the district court. At that time, Williamson was in detention awaiting trial on federal criminal charges, for which he was subsequently convicted. In the petition, Williamson challenged the validity of the criminal proceedings by arguing that the district court had erred in denying his motion to dismiss the indictment due to the denial of his right to a speedy trial. The district court dismissed the Section 2241 petition. Williamson appeals that dismissal.

In Fassler v. United States, 858 F.2d 1016 (5th Cir.1988), the court addressed the denial of a pretrial habeas corpus petition seeking release from pretrial detention and raising several substantive claims challenging the petitioner’s subsequent conviction. The court held that the habeas petitioner’s request for release from confinement was mooted by his conviction and subsequent legal detention. Id. at 1017-18. With respect to the claims that attacked the validity of the conviction, the court held that the pretrial habeas petition was not the vehicle for such claims. Id. at 1019. Accordingly, Williamson has not demonstrated that the district court erred in dismissing his Section 2241 petition.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Williamson’s motion to file a supplemental brief is GRANTED. Williamson’s motion to expedite his appeal is 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.