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)
01-40698•Fleming v. Chandler
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 01-40698
Conference Calendar
____________________
RONALD B. FLEMING,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
ERNEST CHANDLER, Warden
Respondent-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:01-CV-279
--------------------
December 12, 2001
Before HIGGINGBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Ronald Fleming, federal prisoner #14586-076, appeals the
district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition.
Fleming’s failure to identify any error in the district court’s
legal analysis or its application to the facts of this case “is
the same as if he had not appealed that judgment.” Brinkmann v.
Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.
1987). This court “will not raise and discuss legal issues that
-- 1 of 2 --
No. 01-40698
-2-
[Fleming] has failed to assert.” Id. The failure to address the
basis upon which the district court made its determination
renders Fleming’s appeal without merit and thus frivolous. See
Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because
the appeal is frivolous, it is dismissed. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.