Valenzuela v. Morris , 245 F. App'x 397 ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                                                                  United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    F I L E D
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    August 21, 2007
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    Charles R. Fulbruge III
    Clerk
    No. 06-10683
    Conference Calendar
    ENRIQUE VALENZUELA
    Petitioner-Appellant
    v.
    E W MORRIS, Warden Big Spring Correctional Center
    Respondent-Appellee
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Texas
    USDC No. 1:06-CV-24
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Enrique Valenzuela, federal prisoner # 07530-112, appeals from the
    district court’s dismissal of his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2241
     petition.        Valenzuela’s
    contention that the respondent should have been ordered to file an answer is
    without merit. See Wottlin v. Fleming, 
    136 F.3d 1032
    , 1034 (5th Cir. 1998); see
    also Rule 4(b), Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings. Valenzuela argues
    *
    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    should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
    No. 06-10683
    that Congress did not authorize a private contractor to control the conditions of
    confinement, such as prisoner classification and eligibility for rehabilitative
    programs. This argument is raised for the first time in this court and will not
    be considered. Leggett v. Fleming, 
    380 F.3d 232
    , 236 (5th Cir. 2004).
    Valenzuela’s challenge to the district court’s refusal to appoint counsel is
    conclusional. Moreover, he has not shown that the interests of justice require
    the appointment of counsel. See Schwander v. Blackburn, 
    750 F.2d 494
    , 502 (5th
    Cir. 1985). Valenzuela's argument that he has served more prison time than a
    United States citizen would have served is apparently based on the notion that
    his entitlement to early release should be the same as that of a United States
    citizen. However, there is no constitutional right to early release, and the denial
    of early release is within the discretion of the Bureau of Prisons. Rublee v.
    Fleming, 
    160 F.3d 213
    , 217 (5th Cir. 1998).
    AFFIRMED.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-10683

Citation Numbers: 245 F. App'x 397

Judges: Clement, Higginbotham, Per Curiam, Smith

Filed Date: 8/21/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/2/2023