Case Name: William S. JOHNSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Burl CAIN, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-08-17
Citations: 104 F. App'x 429
Docket Number: No. 03-31126
Parties: William S. JOHNSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Burl CAIN, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 104
Pages: 429–429

Head Matter:
William S. JOHNSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Burl CAIN, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 03-31126.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Aug. 17, 2004.
Edward J Castaing, Jr., Crull, Castaing, Lilly & Herman, New Orleans, LA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Valentin Michael Solino, District Attorney’s Office, New Orleans, LA, Respondent-Appellee.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
William S. Johnson, Louisiana prisoner no. 99104, is serving a life sentence for the 1978 murder of his mother. Johnson v. Cain, 215 F.3d 489 (5th Cir.2000). He appeals a district court's final decision foreclosing consideration of claims raised in his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application in 1997 but not addressed by the district court at that time. We have already determined that the claims need not be considered now because Johnson did not contemporaneously attempt to appeal the court's failure to consider them. In re: Johnson, No. 02-30895 (5th Cir. Dec. 5, 2002) (unpublished). Johnson does not show that our prior decision is clearly erroneous or would work a manifest injustice such that the "law of the case" doctrine does not apply. See Hopwood v. Texas, 236 F.3d 256, 272-73 (5th Cir.2000). Nonetheless, we have considered Johnson's unaddressed claims and find no merit in them.
The decision of the district court 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.