Summary Calendar BRUCE CLIFTON HOFFMAN v. Janie Cockrell, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 00-50762
Summary Calendar
BRUCE CLIFTON HOFFMAN
Petitioner - Appellant
v.
JANIE COCKRELL, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL
JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION
Respondent - Appellee
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. W-99-CV-376
--------------------
January 30, 2002
Before KING, Chief Judge, and DAVIS and JONES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Bruce Clifton Hoffman, Texas prisoner #806077, has filed a
28 U.S.C. § 2254 application alleging that: (1) his mandatory
release date was rescinded in violation of the Ex Post Facto
Clause; (2) the State of Texas did not provide any remedies for
him to pursue his instant claims, thereby negating the exhaustion
requirement; and (3) application of Texas House Bill 1433, which
amended TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 508.149(a), to Hoffman, thereby
rendering him ineligible for mandatory supervision, constituted
cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 00-50762
-2-
of the U.S. Constitution. Hoffman concedes that he has not
exhausted his state remedies, stating instead that state court
review is not possible. But state court review of Hoffman’s
argument in Texas state court is possible. See, e.g., Ex parte
Hall, 995 S.W.2d 151 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). Thus, Hoffman has
failed to exhaust his state court remedies as required by 28
U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). See Mercadel v. Cain, 179 F.3d 271, 275
(5th Cir. 1999). The judgment of the district court dismissing
Hoffman’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application is AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --