Case Name: Jerald Lee HINES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. R.T. LUNA, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-12-21
Citations: 260 F. App'x 664
Docket Number: No. 07-50436
Parties: Jerald Lee HINES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. R.T. LUNA, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 260
Pages: 664–664

Head Matter:
Jerald Lee HINES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. R.T. LUNA, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 07-50436
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 21, 2007.
Jerald Lee Hines, Bastrop, TX, pro se.
Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Jerald Hines, federal prisoner # 48922-080, was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm. He filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging the sentence credit he was given for time served in state prison and the validity of his guilty plea and conviction. The district court rejected Hines's sentence-credit argument, and it found that his remaining claims were not cognizable under § 2241 and should have been brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
Hines has abandoned his sentence-credit argument by failing to renew it on appeal. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir.1993). He has not shown that the district court erred in determining that his claims challenging his guilty plea and conviction were best construed as § 2255 claims. See Tolliver v. Dobre, 211 F.3d 876, 877 (5th Cir.2000); Cox v. Warden, Fed. Detention Ctr., 911 F.2d 1111, 1113 (5th Cir.1990). Hines likewise has not shown that he should be permitted to proceed under the savings clause of § 2255. See Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 904, 906 n. 34 (5th Cir.2001). The judgment 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.