Case Name: Guy Ralph PEREA, President of the United States; Tammy Dawn Perea, Vice President of the United States, Petitioners-Appellants, v. George W. BUSH, Governor of Texas; Houston Intercontinental Airport, also known as Bush Intercontinental Airport; Kathyn Cassidy; United States of America, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-05-06
Citations: 96 F. App'x 240
Docket Number: No. 03-21091
Parties: Guy Ralph PEREA, President of the United States; Tammy Dawn Perea, Vice President of the United States, Petitioners-Appellants, v. George W. BUSH, Governor of Texas; Houston Intercontinental Airport, also known as Bush Intercontinental Airport; Kathyn Cassidy; United States of America, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before GARWOOD, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 96
Pages: 240–240

Head Matter:
Guy Ralph PEREA, President of the United States; Tammy Dawn Perea, Vice President of the United States, Petitioners-Appellants, v. George W. BUSH, Governor of Texas; Houston Intercontinental Airport, also known as Bush Intercontinental Airport; Kathyn Cassidy; United States of America, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 03-21091.
Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
May 6, 2004.
Guy Ralph Perea, Soledad, CA, pro se.
■ Tammy Dawn Perea, Sonora, CA, pro se.
Before GARWOOD, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Guy Ralph Perea and Tammy Dawn Perea, who are apparently a husband and wife and also state prisoners in California, filed this action in federal district court in Texas under the habeas corpus statutes. The district court dismissed the case, correctly concluding that personal jurisdiction was lacking. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d); In re Green, 39 F.3d 582, 583 (5th Cir.1994).
Because the Pereas offer no factual or legal basis for challenging this conclusion, the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. 5th Cir. R. 42.3.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.