Max-George v. Ashcroft, et al

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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
November 9, 2001
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-21090
Summary Calendar
PRINCE DWIGHT MAX-GEORGE,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
JOHN D. ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General;
RICHARD CRAVENER, District Director,
Respondents-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-98-CV-3932
--------------------
ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Before JOLLY, EMILIO M. GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The district court’s judgment of December 1, 1998,
dismissing Max-George’s application for a writ of habeas corpus
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for lack of jurisdiction is VACATED. The
case is REMANDED to the district court for further consideration
consistent with INS v. St. Cyr, 121 S. Ct. 2271, 2278-87 (2001)
and Calcano-Martinez v. INS, 121 S. Ct. 2268, 2270 (2001).

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 98-21090
-2-
The Respondents’ motion for leave to file a supplemental
brief and Max-George’s motion for leave to file a response to the
supplemental brief are DENIED. Max-George’s motion for sanctions
under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 is not well taken and is DENIED.
VACATED and REMANDED; MOTIONS DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --