Osteen v. Cockrell

*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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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. 02-40878
Summary Calendar
JACKIE RAY OSTEEN,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
JANIE COCKRELL, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT
OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,
Respondent-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Southern District of Texas
G-02-CV-121
February 14, 2003
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jackie Ray Osteen (Osteen), Texas prisoner #321013, was
convicted by a jury in 1978 of murder and was sentenced to death,
which later was commuted to life imprisonment. He appeals the
district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition, in which

-- 1 of 2 --

1 (Vernon 1977).
2 306 F.3d 277, 279 (5th Cir. 2002).
3 See also Ex parte Franks, 71 S.W.3d 327, 328 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001).
2
he alleged that he was being denied his statutory and
constitutional right to release on mandatory supervision. The
district court granted a certificate of appealability on this
issue.
On appeal, Osteen contends that the district court erred in
denying him habeas relief because its interpretation of the 1977
version of TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 42.12, § 15(c)1 to exclude life-
sentence inmates violated his substantive due process rights.
Osteen’s arguments are foreclosed by our decision in Arnold v.
Cockrell,2 in which we held that an inmate under a life sentence is
not eligible for release under the 1977 version of the Texas
mandatory supervision statute and, thus, does not have a
constitutionally protected interest in such a release and is not
entitled to habeas relief.3
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is hereby
AFFIRMED.
The request to file supplemental briefs is DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --