Case Name: James Paul PACE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Janie COCKRELL, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-09-18
Citations: 75 F. App'x 308
Docket Number: No. 03-50004
Parties: James Paul PACE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Janie COCKRELL, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 75
Pages: 308–308

Head Matter:
James Paul PACE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Janie COCKRELL, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 03-50004
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Sept. 18, 2003.
James Paul Pace, pro se, Iowa Park, TX, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Bret L. Fulkerson, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Texas, Austin, TX, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
James Paul Pace, Texas prisoner # 790645, appeals the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging his convictions for aggravated sexual assault. He argues that the appellate court's actions in holding the appeal in abeyance and remanding the case to the trial court for findings of fact and conclusions of law in support of the trial court's denial of Pace's motion to suppress violated the Confrontation Clause. The trial court was required to make such factual findings under state procedural law. See Tex.Crim. Proc. code. Ann. art 38.22 § 6; cf. Sims v. Georgia, 385 U.S. 538, 544, 87 S.Ct. 639, 17 L.Ed.2d 593 (1967). The trial court held an evidentiary hearing on the motion to suppress, during which Pace was allowed to cross-examine the witnesses against him, and the court relied on that hearing in formulating its factual findings. Pace has not shown that his rights under the Confrontation Clause were violated by the state's remedial procedure. See Delaware v. Fensterer, 474 U.S. 15, 20, 106 S.Ct. 292, 88 L.Ed.2d 15 (1985). The judgment of the district court denying Pace relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition is 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.