Jeff Williamson v. Joe Driver

Filing

Jeff Williamson v. Joe Driver

Doc. 0

Case: 10-20085

Document: 00511176787

Page: 1

Date Filed: 07/16/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 10-20085 S u m m a r y Calendar July 16, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

J E F F H. WILLIAMSON, P e titio n e r-A p p e lla n t v. W A R D E N JOE D. DRIVER, Warden, Houston FDC, R e s p o n d e n t -A p p e lle e

A p p e a l from the United States District Court fo r the Southern District of Texas U S D C No. 4:09-CV-4030

B e fo r e DAVIS, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* O n December 16, 2009, Jeff H. Williamson filed a pretrial 28 U.S.C. § 2241 p e t it io n in the district court. At that time, Williamson was in detention awaiting t r ia l on federal criminal charges, for which he was subsequently convicted. In t h e petition, Williamson challenged the validity of the criminal proceedings by a r g u in g that the district court had erred in denying his motion to dismiss the in d ic t m e n t due to the denial of his right to a speedy trial. The district court d is m is s e d the Section 2241 petition. Williamson appeals that dismissal.
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
*

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 10-20085

Document: 00511176787 Page: 2 No. 10-20085

Date Filed: 07/16/2010

I n Fassler v. United States, 858 F.2d 1016 (5th Cir. 1988), the court a d d r e s s e d the denial of a pretrial habeas corpus petition seeking release from p r e t r ia l detention and raising several substantive claims challenging the p e t it io n e r 's subsequent conviction. The court held that the habeas petitioner's r e q u e s t for release from confinement was mooted by his conviction and s u b s e q u e n t legal detention. Id. at 1017-18. With respect to the claims that a t t a c k e d the validity of the conviction, the court held that the pretrial habeas p e t it io n was not the vehicle for such claims. Id. at 1019. Accordingly,

W illia m s o n has not demonstrated that the district court erred in dismissing his S e c tio n 2241 petition. T h e judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Williamson's motion to file a supplemental brief is GRANTED. Williamson's motion to expedite his a p p e a l is DENIED.

2