Case ID: f-appx_351/html/0903-01.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

Frederick Hamilton BANKS, Petitioner-Appellant v. Bruce PEARSON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 09-60062
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Oct. 30, 2009.
    Frederick Hamilton Banks, Yazoo City, MS, pro se.
    Before JONES, Chief Judge, and WIENER and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Frederick Banks, federal prisoner # 05711-068, was convicted of mail fraud and was sentenced to serve 63 months in prison. Banks filed the instant 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition to challenge an alleged delay in the disposition of his direct criminal appeal. The district court interpreted his petition as seeking both § 2241 relief and mandamus relief and denied it. Banks now appeals that decision.

Banks asserts that his § 2241 petition was filed to challenge both a delay in his sentencing and a delay in the disposition of his appeal. We decline to consider Banks’s claim concerning an alleged delay in his sentencing proceedings because it was not presented to the district court. See Johnson v. Puckett, 930 F.2d 445, 448 (5th Cir.1991).

Banks argues that his § 2241 petition was the proper vehicle to raise his claims concerning the alleged delay in disposition of his direct criminal appeal and that a motion to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is inadequate to raise these claims. “In an appeal from the denial of habeas relief, this court reviews a district court’s findings of fact for clear error and issues of law de novo.” Jeffers v. Chandler, 253 F.3d 827, 830 (5th Cir.2001). Banks has shown no error in connection with the district court’s determination that he was not entitled to § 2241 relief or a writ of mandamus.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.