Case Name: Herman Douglas CARTER, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-02-19
Citations: 365 F. App'x 609
Docket Number: No. 09-60443
Parties: Herman Douglas CARTER, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 365
Pages: 609–609

Head Matter:
Herman Douglas CARTER, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 09-60443
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 19, 2010.
Herman Douglas Carter, Jr., Yazoo City, MS, pro se.
Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Herman Douglas Carter, Jr., federal prisoner # 83346-020, appeals the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, in which he challenged his conviction for aggravated sexual assault and kid-naping and resulting 327-month sentence. The district court determined that Carter could not proceed under § 2241 because his claims did not satisfy the requirements of the "savings clause" of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). Carter's brief is entirely devoted to the merits of his claims for relief.
Carter has not argued, much less shown, that he is entitled to proceed under § 2241 based on the savings clause of § 2255(e). See Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 900-01, 904 (5th Cir.2001). Carter has waived the issue by failing to brief it. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.1993); Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.1987). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Carter's "motion requesting a bond hearing be set," "motion for emergency hearing for writ of habeas corpus," and motion to remand incorporated therein are DENIED. See Calley v. Callaway, 496 F.2d 701, 702 (5th Cir.1974).
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.