Denny Hardin v. Myron Batt

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [14-11285 Dismissed as Frivolous] Judge: WED , Judge: EBC , Judge: GJC Mandate pull date is 07/31/2015; denying motion for judicial notice filed by Appellant Mr. Denny Ray Hardin [7908869-2], denying motion for judicial notice filed by Appellant Mr. Denny Ray Hardin [7872783-2], denying motion for judicial notice filed by Appellant Mr. Denny Ray Hardin [7829992-2] [14-11285]

Case: 14-11285

Document: 00513072067

Page: 1

Date Filed: 06/09/2015

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Fifth Circuit

FILED
No. 14-11285
Summary Calendar

June 9, 2015
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

DENNY RAY HARDIN,
Petitioner-Appellant
v.
MYRON L. BATTS, Warden,
Respondent-Appellee
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:14-CV-181
Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Denny Ray Hardin, federal prisoner # 22264-045, appeals the dismissal
of a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition. Hardin is serving a 120-month
sentence for multiple fraud crimes.
The district court noted that Hardin has already filed at least one
unsuccessful motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The district court therefore
dismissed his petition as an unauthorized successive § 2255 motion. The

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
*

Case: 14-11285

Document: 00513072067

Page: 2

Date Filed: 06/09/2015

No. 14-11285
district court also determined that the Hardin could not invoke the savings
clause of § 2241. See Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th
Cir. 2001).
On appeal, Hardin asserts, among other things, that he has committed
no crime and that the United States District Courts have no constitutional
authority over him. He makes no argument relevant to the district court’s
construction of his petition as a successive and unauthorized § 2255 motion,
and he refuses even to acknowledge his conviction.

Hardin also has not

attempted to show that he is entitled to proceed under the savings clause of
§ 2241. By his lack of briefing, Hardin has waived any relevant challenge to
the district court’s ruling. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir.
1993) (issues not briefed are abandoned).
In any event, the district court properly dismissed Hardin’s petition as a
successive and unauthorized § 2255 motion over which the court lacked
jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(3), 2255(h); Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448,
452 (5th Cir. 2000); United States v. Key, 205 F.3d 773, 774 (5th Cir. 2000).
Hardin’s appeal lacks arguable merit and is DISMISSED as frivolous. See
Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. All of
Hardin’s motions for “Judicial Notice” or any other relief are DENIED.

2