United States v. LaGrant

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 01-50178
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
XAVIER LAGRANT,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. SA-00-CR-454-1
- - - - - - - - - -
May 31, 2001
Before EMILIO M. GARZA, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Xavier LaGrant appeals the revocation of his release on
bond. LaGrant has failed to show, however, that the district
court abused its discretion in denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241
petition challenging, inter alia, the revocation of his bond.
See United States v. Rueben, 974 F.2d 580, 586 (5th Cir. 1992);
United States v. Hare, 873 F.2d 796, 798 (5th Cir. 1989).
LaGrant first violated the conditions of his release by
violating the electronic monitoring requirement. He was placed
in a halfway house as a result of that violation. While a

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 01-50178
-2-
resident at the halfway house, LaGrant consumed alcohol, a
violation of the house rules and of his conditions of release.
His bond was revoked on the basis that he had violated a
condition of release and was unlikely to abide by any condition
or combination of conditions of release. 18 U.S.C. § 3148(b)(1)
and (2).
Instead of challenging the magistrate judge’s revocation of
his bond, LaGrant filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. LaGrant
does not contest the factual finding that he consumed alcohol
while a resident at the halfway house. He argues that this
violation was insufficient to warrant revocation of his bond.
The argument lacks merit. The district court did not abuse its
discretion in denying LaGrant’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in
which he challenged the revocation of his bond.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --