La Spina v. Pettiford

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
August 30, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-60232
Summary Calendar
LAWRENCE LA SPINA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
MIKE PETTIFORD, Warden,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 5:03-CV-500RGu
--------------------
Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Lawrence La Spina, prisoner number 82781-054, was convicted
of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, conspiracy to commit tax
fraud, obstruction of justice, and failure to surrender. The
district court sentenced him to serve 82 months in prison and a
four-year term of supervised release. La Spina filed a purported
28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition to challenge these convictions. The
district court determined that La Spina’s purported 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 petition was best classed as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 04-60232
-2-
dismissed it. La Spina now appeals that dismissal. La Spina
also requests that his appeal be expeditiously considered. That
request is DENIED. La Spina’s motion to correct procedural
error, which relates to this court’s prior denial of his petition
for a writ of mandamus, is likewise DENIED.
La Spina argues that the district court was without
jurisdiction to construe his purported 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition
as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. He also contends that the district
court erred in dismissing his purported 28 U.S.C. § 2241
petition. La Spina’s arguments center primarily on the use of
capital letters in various court documents, whether the district
court is an Article III court, and whether his rights were
violated when he received a “jury trial,” rather than a “trial by
jury.”
In reviewing the denial of habeas relief, the district
court’s findings of fact are reviewed for clear error and issues
of law are reviewed de novo. Jeffers v. Chandler, 253 F.3d 827,
830 (5th Cir. 2001). La Spina has not shown that the district
court erred in construing his pleading as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255
motion that should be dismissed or that the district court was
without power to take this action. See Tolliver v. Dobre, 211
F.3d 876, 877-78 (5th Cir. 2000); Cox v. Warden, Fed. Detention
Ctr., 911 F.2d 1111, 1113 (5th Cir. 1990); Solsona v. Warden, 821
F.2d 1129, 1132 (5th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, the judgment of
the district court is AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 04-60232
-3-
The arguments presented in La Spina’s filings with this
court are wholly lacking in merit. La Spina is WARNED that
future attempts to relitigate these arguments could result in
sanctions. See Coughlan v. Starkey, 852 F.2d 806, 817 (5th Cir.
1988); Farguson v. MBank Houston, N.A., 808 F.2d 358, 359 (5th
Cir. 1986).
JUDGMENT OF DISTRICT COURT AFFIRMED; ALL OUTSTANDING MOTIONS
DENIED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.

-- 3 of 3 --