Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-11285/USCOURTS-ca5-14-11285-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Myron L. Batts
Appellee
Denny Ray Hardin
Appellant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-11285

Summary Calendar

DENNY RAY HARDIN,

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

MYRON L. BATTS, Warden,

Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:14-CV-181

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Denny Ray Hardin, federal prisoner # 22264-045, appeals the dismissal 

of a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition. Hardin is serving a 120-month 

sentence for multiple fraud crimes.

The district court noted that Hardin has already filed at least one 

unsuccessful motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The district court therefore 

dismissed his petition as an unauthorized successive § 2255 motion. The 

 

* 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

June 9, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 14-11285 Document: 00513072067 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/09/2015
No. 14-11285

2

district court also determined that the Hardin could not invoke the savings

clause of § 2241. See Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th 

Cir. 2001).

On appeal, Hardin asserts, among other things, that he has committed 

no crime and that the United States District Courts have no constitutional 

authority over him. He makes no argument relevant to the district court’s 

construction of his petition as a successive and unauthorized § 2255 motion, 

and he refuses even to acknowledge his conviction. Hardin also has not 

attempted to show that he is entitled to proceed under the savings clause of

§ 2241. By his lack of briefing, Hardin has waived any relevant challenge to 

the district court’s ruling. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 

1993) (issues not briefed are abandoned).

In any event, the district court properly dismissed Hardin’s petition as a 

successive and unauthorized § 2255 motion over which the court lacked 

jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(3), 2255(h); Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 

452 (5th Cir. 2000); United States v. Key, 205 F.3d 773, 774 (5th Cir. 2000). 

Hardin’s appeal lacks arguable merit and is DISMISSED as frivolous. See 

Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. All of 

Hardin’s motions for “Judicial Notice” or any other relief are DENIED.

Case: 14-11285 Document: 00513072067 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/09/2015