The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
09-11649•Lindsey Nelson, Jr. v. David L. Frazier
09-11649Court of Appeals for the Eleventh CircuitNov 16, 2010
FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
NOV 16, 2010
JOHN LEY
CLERK
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 09-11649
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 08-00033-CV-1
LINDSEY NELSON, JR.,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
DAVID L. FRAZIER,
Warden,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia
_________________________
(November 16, 2010)
Before BARKETT, MARCUS and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Lindsey Nelson Jr., a Georgia prisoner, appeals pro se the denial of his
-- 1 of 2 --
petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2254. We granted a certificate of
appealability to resolve “[w]hether the district court erred in finding that Nelson’s
claim of an unlawful sentence was procedurally defaulted” when the state court
ruled that “the claim was procedurally defaulted or barred by res judicata.” In his
brief, Nelson concedes that his claim of an unlawful sentence is procedurally
defaulted, “so that issue has been abandoned and is no longer before us.” Pugh v.
Smith, 465 F.3d 1295, 1298 (11th Cir. 2006). Nelson instead challenges his
conviction and sentence, but we will not address his arguments because they are
outside the scope of the certificate of appealability. Rhode v. United States, 583
F.3d 1289, 1291 (11th Cir. 2009). We affirm the denial of Nelson’s petition.
AFFIRMED.
2
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.