Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-03-10996/USCOURTS-ca5-03-10996-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Ashcroft
Appellee
Doug Dretke, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
Appellee
Cecil Ray Patterson
Appellant

Document Text:

*

 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 circumstancesset forth in 5TH CIR.R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 23, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

____________

No. 03-10996

 Summary Calendar

____________

CECIL RAY PATTERSON,

 Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

DOUG DRETKE, DIRECTOR, 

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, 

CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION; JOHN

ASHCROFT,

 Respondents-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:01-CV-135

Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Cecil Ray Patterson, Texas state prisoner # 779579, appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C. §

2241 petition for habeas corpus. Patterson was convicted of both the Texas state charge of

attempted capital murder and the federal charge of felon in possession of a firearm. Patterson argues

 Case: 03-10996 Document: 0051444086 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/23/2004
2

that the district court erred in finding that the rule against piecemeal incarceration did not prevent his

transfer from federal to state custody before he fully served his federal sentence.

We review the district court’s findings for clear error and its rulings of law de novo. See

Moody v. Johnson, 139 F.3d 477, 480 (5th Cir.1998).

The district court correctlyconcluded that Patterson’stransferto state custodydid not violate

the rule against piecemeal incarceration because the transfer did not result in the lengthening of his

sentence. See Free v. Miles, 333 F.3d 550, 552 (5th Cir. 2003). 

Patterson failed to argue and has therefore abandoned an appeal of the district court’s

determination that it lacked jurisdiction over any § 2255 claimsthat he was attempting to assert. See

Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).

Further, Pattersonhasfiled four previousfederalhabeas petitions challenging histransferfrom

federal to state custody. He filed two previous § 2241, one previous § 2254, and one previous §

2255 petition. This is therefore Patterson’s fifth attempt to challenge his transfer. Because this

appeal is a “duplicative action arising from the same series of events and alleging many of the same

facts as an earlier suit” the appeal is DISMISSED as FRIVOLOUS. See Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d

1019, 1021 (5thCir. 1988); Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 512, 219-20 (5thCir. 1983); 5THCIR.R. 42.2.

Patterson is WARNED that any future filings to this court or any court subject to the

jurisdiction of this court that challenge histransfer from federal to state custody will invite sanctions,

which may include monetary fines and/or restrictions on his ability to file pleadings in federal court.

DISMISSED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.

 Case: 03-10996 Document: 0051444086 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/23/2004