Court Opinion

ID: 21618
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 07:47:20+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:03:41.110786
License: Public Domain

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                         FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

                         _____________________

                              No. 99-30972
                            Summary Calendar
                         _____________________

BOBBY ODUS,

                                                 Plaintiff-Appellant,

                                versus

IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION
SERVICE,

                                              Defendant-Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________

      Appeal from the United States District Court for the
                  Western District of Louisiana
                        USDC No. 99-CV-913
_________________________________________________________________
                           July 27, 2000

Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Bobby Odus appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his

habeas corpus petition, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, for

lack of subject matter jurisdiction.     He has also filed a habeas

corpus petition, pursuant to § 2241, and a motion to appoint

counsel in this court.

     The “permanent rules” of the Illegal Immigration Reform and

Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (“IIRIRA”) eliminated § 2241

     *
      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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
habeas    jurisdiction   for   those   cases   falling   within   8   U.S.C.

§ 1252(a)(2)(C).    Max-George v. Reno, 205 F.3d 194, 198 (5th Cir.

2000).    Odus’s case is governed by the “permanent rules” because

his deportation proceedings commenced after April 1, 1997.               See

Max-George, 205 F.3d at 197 n.3.           His case also falls within

§ 1252(a)(2)(C) because he was convicted of a felony involving

fraud or deceit in which the loss to the victims exceeded $10,000.

See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(43)(M), 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii).          Accordingly,

the district court’s dismissal of Odus’s § 2241 petition for lack

of subject matter jurisdiction is AFFIRMED, Odus’s § 2241 habeas

corpus petition is DISMISSED, and his motion to appoint counsel is

DENIED.

                                       2