United States v. Osborne

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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
February 23, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-30506
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
NOLAN OSBORNE,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
USDC No. 3:95-CR-4-B-M
--------------------
Before BARKSDALE, GARZA, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Nolan Osborne, Louisiana prisoner number 119714, pleaded
guilty in federal court to three charges of distribution of crack
cocaine and one charge of conspiracy to possess crack cocaine
with intent to distribute. The district court sentenced him to
serve 121 months in prison and a five-year term of supervised
release. Osborne was placed on supervised release, but the
Probation Office filed a motion to revoke his supervised release
based on, inter alia, his arrest for drug-related activity.

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 04-30506
-2-
Osborne subsequently pleaded guilty to drug charges in state
court and received a seven-year sentence.
Osborne has not shown that the district court erred in
denying his “writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum” wherein he
requested that the district court return him to federal custody,
revoke his supervised release, and permit him to serve his state
sentence concurrently with the remainder of his federal sentence.
The district court was not obligated to hold a hearing
pursuant to FED. R. CRIM. P. 32.1 because Osborne was not taken
into federal custody in relation to his violation of the terms of
his supervised release. Osborne has no right to concurrent
sentences, nor is he entitled to serve his sentences in any
particular facility. See Tighe v. Wall, 100 F.3d 41, 42 (5th
Cir. 1996); Saulsbury v. United States, 591 F.2d 1028, 1031, 1035
(5th Cir. 1979). To the extent that Osborne is attempting to
challenge his state convictions, we decline to consider this
argument because it was not presented to the district court. See
Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co., 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir.
1999).
Osborne has shown no error in the district court’s judgment.
Accordingly, that judgment is AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --