Case Name: Michael Todd JONES, Petitioner-Appellant v. Rick THALER, 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: 2009-09-17
Citations: 344 F. App'x 926
Docket Number: No. 08-11134
Parties: Michael Todd JONES, Petitioner-Appellant v. Rick THALER, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before DAVIS, SMITH and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 344
Pages: 926–927

Head Matter:
Michael Todd JONES, Petitioner-Appellant v. Rick THALER, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 08-11134
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Sept. 17, 2009.
Michael Todd Jones, Iowa Park, TX, pro se.
Before DAVIS, SMITH and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
In 1986, Michael Todd Jones, Texas prisoner # 419729, was convicted of aggravated robbery and sentenced to 30 years of imprisonment. He filed the instant petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to challenge (1) his loss of good time credits upon revocation of parole and (2) the denial of time credit (a) for completion of his G.E.D, and (b) under the Prison Management Act (PMA). The district court construed Jones's § 2254 petition as a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition and denied it. The district court found that the petition was procedurally barred and that, even if it was not proeedurally barred, Jones could not prevail on the merits.
Jones seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) but also argues that a COA is not required for this appeal. The latter assertion is correct. The district court did not err in construing Jones's petition as a § 2241 petition, see United States v. Gabor, 905 F.2d 76, 77-78 (5th Cir.1990), and Jones is not required to obtain a COA to appeal the denial of his § 2241 petition, see Padilla v. United States, 416 F.3d 424, 425 (5th Cir.2005).
Jones does not contest the district court's procedural bar ruling. He has therefore abandoned the threshold issue in this appeal. Hughes v. Johnson, 191 F.3d 607, 613 (5th Cir.1999); Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.1993).
Jones's complaint that he was not given an adequate opportunity to respond to the district court's ruling is without merit.
AFFIRMED.
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.