Court Opinion

ID: 15694
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 06:47:32+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:58:47.097399
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

                             _______________________

                                   No. 97-10686
                                 Summary Calendar
                             _______________________

MICHAEL JOHN WARREN,

                                                        Petitioner-Appellant,

                                       versus

GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR,
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,

                                                        Respondent-Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

           Appeal from the United States District Court
                for the Northern District of Texas
                          (4:96-CV-177-A)
_________________________________________________________________

                                 August 27, 1998

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

                  We have carefully reviewed the briefs and the pertinent

state       and    federal   court   records.   After   doing   this,   we   are

persuaded that the district court’s disposition of Warren’s § 2254

habeas petition should be affirmed on the basis articulated by the

district court.          We agree with that court’s conclusion that the

Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ruled on the merits of petitioner’s

first habeas petition and, for that reason, the Court of Criminal

        *
      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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
Appeals concluded that the second petition was an abuse of the

writ.   The district court has no other issues before it, and

neither do we, as Warren never objected to the magistrate judge’s

ruling on the non-procedurally-based issues, and he has furnished

no briefing on any of these issues to this court.

                                2