Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-03-41249/USCOURTS-ca5-03-41249-0/pdf.json

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

---

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 21, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-41249

Conference Calendar

 

RICHARD J. JOHNSON,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

DOUG DRETKE, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT 

OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION,

Respondent-Appellee.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 9:02-CV-219

--------------------

Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Richard J. Johnson, Texas prisoner # 1005689, moves for a

certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal from the district

court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. Johnson did not

timely appeal from district court’s judgment denying his 28

U.S.C. § 2254 petition. See FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(1)(A). Rather,

his notice of appeal was timely filed only as to the court’s

denial of his postjudgment motions. Johnson’s COA motion is

DENIED as unnecessary. See Dunn v. Cockrell, 302 F.3d 491, 492 

 Case: 03-41249 Document: 0051534002 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/21/2004
No. 03-41249

-2-

& n.1 (5th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1181 (2003). 

Johnson fails to argue specifically in his brief that the

district court erred in denying his postjudgment motions. 

Claims not adequately argued in the body of the brief are deemed

abandoned on appeal. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th

Cir. 1993). By failing to raise any specific arguments as to the

denial of his postjudgment motions, Johnson has abandoned the

only issue properly before this court. See id. 

Johnson’s appeal is without merit. See Howard v. King, 707

F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, we DISMISS THE

APPEAL AS FRIVOLOUS. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. The filing of

frivolous appeals in the future could subject Johnson to

sanctions.

Johnson’s motions for the appointment of counsel; for an

evidentiary hearing; for expansion of the appellate record; for

this court to remand to the state appellate court; and for a new

trial and for arrest of judgment are DENIED. 

COA DENIED; REMAINING MOTIONS DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED;

SANCTION WARNING ISSUED. 

 Case: 03-41249 Document: 0051534002 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/21/2004