Odus v. INS

*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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
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

-- 1 of 2 --

2
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 of 2 --