Villar-Grana v. Venturella, 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-31157
Summary Calendar
ROBERTO VILLAR-GRANA,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
DAVID VENTURELLA, Assistant Commissioner, United States
Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization
Service; BURL CAIN, Warden Louisiana State Penitentiary;
DORIS MEISSNER, Commissioner of Immigration and
Naturalization Service; JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General of
the United States; IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,
Respondents-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
USDC No. 00-CV-291-B
--------------------
May 9, 2001
Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Roberto Villar-Grana (Villar) appeals the district court’s
final judgment denying his requests for habeas and mandamus
relief. Villar, who is a Cuban national, sought habeas and
mandamus relief after the federal Government purportedly breached
an agreement intended to defuse a hostage situation at the St.
Martin Parish Jail. According to Villar, the Government agreed

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 00-31157
-2-
1 Villar and the federal respondents agree that, although
Villar also was convicted and sentenced for attempted first-
degree murder, that conviction and sentence have been overturned
on direct appeal.
to, but did not, provide him safe passage to Cuba after he and
several other Cuban inmates released the hostages whom they were
holding. Villar maintains that he is entitled to habeas relief
because the purported breach on the part of the federal
respondents violated the fundamental-fairness doctrine implicit
in the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. He also maintains
that he is entitled to mandamus relief because the federal
respondents had a clear constitutional duty under the Fifth
Amendment and the fundamental-fairness doctrine to honor their
agreement with him.
Villar does not dispute that, prior to the hostage-taking
incident, he was convicted in Louisiana state court of possession
of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute.
He likewise does not dispute that, shortly after the incident was
resolved, he was sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment, a sentence
which he is currently serving at the Louisiana State Penitentiary
in Angola, Louisiana.1 Villar has not challenged, either in this
court or in the district court, the validity of that conviction
or sentence. Instead, he argues that his detention is
unconstitutional because of the contractual breach on the part of
the federal respondents, which he maintains violated his
substantive due-process rights. The flaw with Villar’s argument
is that two sovereigns are involved, the State of Louisiana and
the federal Government. Whatever perceived constitutional

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 00-31157
-3-
violations the federal respondents may have committed does not
affect the validity of his state detention. Because Villar has
not shown that his Louisiana drug conviction or sentence are
constitutionally invalid, there is no basis for granting him
habeas relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241(c)(3), 2254(a).
By failing to establish that he is entitled to habeas relief
and that his release from prison is warranted, he likewise has
not shown that he is entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the
federal respondents to transport him to Cuba. See 28 U.S.C.
1361. Villar cannot obtain his release from prison by showing
his entitlement to mandamus relief. See Preiser v. Rodriguez,
411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973)(holding that writ of habeas corpus is
sole federal remedy for state prisoner seeking immediate or
speedier release). Because Villar has not established his
entitlement to habeas relief and because his request for mandamus
relief is not warranted, the district court’s judgment is
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --