Case ID: f-appx_103/html/0840-01.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

Kevin E. KECK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of TEXAS; Doug Dretke, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division; Cristina Melton Crain, Chairman, TDCJ Board of Pardon & Paroles; Gerald Gearett, Director, TDCJ Pardon & Parole Division; Rick Perry, Governor; Texas Department of Criminal Justice; Texas Department of Criminal Justice Board of Pardon and Parole; Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Pardon & Parole Division, Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 04-50025.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided July 29, 2004.
    William J Dockeray, Jr, Huntsville, TX, pro se.
    
      Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Kevin E. Keck moves for a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging the constitutionality of Texas’s mandatory supervised release law. He is currently on release to mandatory supervision after serving a portion of his 10-year sentence for indecency with a child by contact.

Keck argues that Texas’s mandatory supervised release law violates his right to equal protection insofar as other inmates upon whom release to mandatory supervision is not imposed are able to enjoy the right to a continuous sentence and do not have to serve their sentences in installments. He further contends that his right to a fixed sentence has been deprived him with out due process. He has not, however, shown “that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000). His COA motion is therefore DENIED.

Keck also seeks to appeal the award of costs to the respondents; however, an order awarding costs is not reviewable on appeal until the award is reduced to a sum certain. So. Travel Club, Inc. v. Carnival Air Lines, Inc., 986 F.2d 125, 131 (5th Cir.1993). Consequently, as the district court has not yet reduced the award to a sum certain, we lack jurisdiction over the appeal of the costs award. See id.

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.