Coakley v. Tombone

1 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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
May 2, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-41639
Summary Calendar
CLARENCE DOUGLAS COAKLEY,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
JOHN M. TOMBONE, Warden,
Respondent-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:02-CV-587
--------------------
Before JONES, DUHÉ, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:1
Clarence Douglas Coakley (“Coakley”), federal prisoner
# 16434-056, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his petition
for a writ of habeas corpus, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
Coakley’s petition stemmed from his 1996 convictions and sentences
for possession and conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute
cocaine.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
The district court did not err in dismissing the petition.
Coakley’s claim pursuant to Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466
(2000), does not satisfy the test for filing a 28 U.S.C. § 2241
petition under the 28 U.S.C. § 2255 savings clause. See Wesson v.
U.S. Penitentiary, Beaumont, TX, 305 F.3d 343, 347-48 (5th Cir.
2002), cert. denied, 123 S. Ct. 1374 (2003). Coakley’s
ineffective-assistance claims likewise may not be raised in a 28
U.S.C. § 2241 petition by way of the 28 U.S.C. § 2255 “savings
clause,” notwithstanding that Coakley may be unable to satisfy the
requirements for pursuing his claims in a successive 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 motion in the sentencing court. See Henderson v. Haro, 282
F.3d 862, 864 (5th Cir. 2002).
This appeal is without arguable merit and is 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 --