Case Name: Coyett Deon JOHNSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN U.S. PENITENTIARY POLLOCK, also known as Carl Casterline, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-01-13
Citations: 117 F. App'x 381
Docket Number: No. 04-10726
Parties: Coyett Deon JOHNSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN U.S. PENITENTIARY POLLOCK, also known as Carl Casterline, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before GARZA, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 117
Pages: 381–382

Head Matter:
Coyett Deon JOHNSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN U.S. PENITENTIARY POLLOCK, also known as Carl Casterline, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 04-10726.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Jan. 13, 2005.
Coyett Deon Johnson, # 07403-064, Beaumont, TX, pro se.
Before GARZA, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Coyett Deon Johnson, federal prisoner # 07403-064, appeals from the district court's dismissal without prejudice of his habeas corpus petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Johnson argues that the district court erred in determining that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
We review the district court's dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction de novo. See Peoples Nat'l Bank v. Office of the Comptroller, 362 F.3d 333, 336 (5th Cir.2004). Johnson argues that his instant Oklahoma federal conviction was improperly enhanced based upon an invalid state conviction from Wichita County, Texas. Johnson concedes that he has discharged his sentence on the Wichita County conviction and that he was not successful in challenging this conviction on collateral review. See Lackawanna County Dist. Attorney v. Coss, 532 U.S. 394, 402, 121 S.Ct. 1567, 149 L.Ed.2d 608 (2001). Accordingly, the district court did not err in dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See id. The judgment 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.