Case Name: Arlice J. HUFFMAN and John F. Burns, Petitioners-Appellants, v. W. J. ESTELLE, Jr., Director, Texas Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1976-08-13
Citations: 536 F.2d 1106
Docket Number: No. 75-3662
Parties: Arlice J. HUFFMAN and John F. Burns, Petitioners-Appellants, v. W. J. ESTELLE, Jr., Director, Texas Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before AINSWORTH, CLARK and RO-NEY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 536
Pages: 1106–1107

Head Matter:
Arlice J. HUFFMAN and John F. Burns, Petitioners-Appellants, v. W. J. ESTELLE, Jr., Director, Texas Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 75-3662
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Aug. 13, 1976.
George A. Scharmen, II, Staff Counsel for Inmates, Huntsville, Tex., for petitioners-appellants.
Lonny F. Zweiner, Asst. Atty. Gen., Robert E. DeLong, Jr., Austin, Tex., for respondent-appellee.
Before AINSWORTH, CLARK and RO-NEY, Circuit Judges.
Rule 18, 5 Cir.; see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al, 5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
This is an appeal from the denial of habeas corpus relief to two Texas prisoners, and denial of leave to proceed as a class action on behalf of themselves and "all others similarly situated." Appellants contend that they were denied due process and equal protection of law when the Governor of Texas commuted their unconstitutional death sentences to 99 years imprisonment. In an appeal raising this same issue in an identical context, we have decided the question against the habeas corpus petitioner. Sellars v. Estelle, 536 F.2d 1104 (5th Cir. 1976). See Curry v. Estelle, 524 F.2d 981, 982 (5th Cir. 1975). The petitioners are incorrect in their argument that a fundamental constitutional right to resentencing before a jury has been abrogated. Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 96 S.Ct. 175, 46 L.Ed.2d 162, 44 U.S.L.W. 3277 (1975); Ant- wine y. Estelle, 486 F.2d 189 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1115, 94 S.Ct. 847, 38 L.Ed.2d 742 (1973). Furthermore, there is no merit to the suggestion that the Governor's action amounted to a bill of attainder.
The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.