Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03375/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03375-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

nJ ~~~oRp?eals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS- Tent.'1 Circuit 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

RAY R. MCLAMORE, ) 

) 

Petitioner-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

) 

RICHARD R. THORNBURGH; J. MICHAEL ) 

QUINLAN; GARY L. HENMAN, Warden; ) 

SHARON P. DIXON, Mayor of ) 

Washington, D.C., ) 

) 

Respondents-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

SEP 12 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

Nos. 90-3375 & 

91-3050 

(D.C. No. 90-3533-R) 

(D. Kansas) 

Before LOGAN, MOORE, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges. 

Petitioner Ray R. McLamore was convicted of criminal 

violation of the District of Columbia Code and was subsequently 

transferred to the United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kansas 

(USPL), to serve his sentence. The district court denied his 

petition for habeas corpus, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

McLamore v. Thornburgh, No. 90-3533-R, 1991 WL 17727 

(unpubl.)(D. Kan. Jan. 25, 1991). Petitioner appeals pursuant to 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-3375 Document: 010110090137 Date Filed: 09/12/1991 Page: 1 
'1 

r, 

• 

1 28 u.s.c. § 2253. 

In response to petitioner's notice of appeal, the district 

court found that the appeal was frivolous and not taken in good 

faith. Based on this finding, the court denied petitioner leave 

to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. Dist. Ct. R. doc. 9. 

Petitioner renewed his motion for in forma pauperis status with 

this court, and it is hereby granted. 2 Case No. 90-3375, an 

interlocutory appeal, is dismissed for mootness because of the 

court's disposition of petitioner's appeal on the merits herein. 

Each of the claims petitioner raises on appeal has been 

considered and was found to be lacking in merit in Blanga v. 

Thornburgh, F.2d _, No. 91-3047, 1991 WL 154940 (10th Cir. 

Aug. 16, 1991). The judgment of the United States District Court 

for the District of Kansas is AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue 

forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

Per Curiam 

1 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

2 We decline petitioner's invitation to order appellees to file 

a brief with this court. While Rule 31.2.1 of this circuit's 

local rules of court specifies the time limit of thirty days 

within which appellees shall file a brief concerning an appeal, 

Fed. R. App. P. 31(c) specifies the consequences if appellees fail 

to do so: "If an appellee fails to file a brief, the appellee 

will not be heard at oral argument except by permission of the 

court." Just as petitioner himself relies on his briefs from the 

district court on appeal to this court, it is permissible for 

appellees to rest on their briefs filed with the district court. 

2 

Appellate Case: 90-3375 Document: 010110090137 Date Filed: 09/12/1991 Page: 2