Case Name: Charles Dean HOOD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Nathaniel QUARTERMAN, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-06-16
Citations: 281 F. App'x 394
Docket Number: No. 08-70022
Parties: Charles Dean HOOD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Nathaniel QUARTERMAN, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 281
Pages: 394–394

Head Matter:
Charles Dean HOOD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Nathaniel QUARTERMAN, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 08-70022.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 16, 2008.
Thomas Scott Smith, Smith & Smith, Sherman, TX, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Tornee Morgan Heining, Office of the Attorney General, Postconviction Litigation Div., Austin, TX, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Charles Hood appeals an order of the district court, entered June 6, 2008, denying his motion for appointment of counsel and his motion for stay of execution. In his merits brief, Hood raises only the following issue: "Does the federal appointment statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3599, provide prisoners sentenced under state law the right to federally appointed and funded counsel to pursue clemency under state law?"
In his brief, Hood "acknowledges that the law of this Circuit has foreclosed the issue." He is correct that in Clark v. Johnson, 278 F.3d 459, 462-63 (5th Cir. 2002), this court held that the statute does not apply to state clemency proceedings.
The order of the district court is accordingly AFFIRMED. Hood's separate motion for stay of execution filed in this court is DENIED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.