Moore v. United States Attorney General, No. 72-3331 Summary Calendar.
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit) |
Writing for the Court | PER CURIAM |
Citation | 473 F.2d 1375 |
Parties | James H. MOORE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, J. D. Henderson, Warden, etc., et al., Respondent-Appellee. |
Decision Date | 28 February 1973 |
Docket Number | No. 72-3331 Summary Calendar. |
473 F.2d 1375 (1973)
James H. MOORE, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, J. D. Henderson, Warden, etc., et al., Respondent-Appellee.
No. 72-3331 Summary Calendar.*
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
February 28, 1973.
James H. Moore, pro se.
John W. Stokes, U. S. Atty., Anthony M. Arnold, Asst. U. S. Atty., Atlanta, Ga., for respondent-appellee.
Before JOHN R. BROWN, Chief Judge, and DYER and SIMPSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the Attorney General of the United States and the Warden of the Atlanta Federal Penitentiary to transfer his place of confinement from Atlanta to Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, so that he might be incarcerated in close proximity to the residence of his wife and children. While we have no doubt that such a transfer might serve to enhance the rehabilitative aspects of Petitioner's jail term, he has failed to raise a claim cognizable by federal courts. Therefore, we affirm the District Court's denial of the writ.
A person convicted of a crime against the United States and sentenced to confinement is committed by statute to the custody of the Attorney General at a place to be designated solely by the Attorney General. 18 U.S.C.A. § 4082. Floyd v. Henderson, 5 Cir., 1972, 456 F.2d 1117; Holland v. Ciccone, 8 Cir., 1967, 386 F.2d 825. Cf. Royal v. Clark, 5 Cir., 1971, 447 F.2d 501; Krist v. Smith, 5 Cir., 1971, 439 F.2d 146; Haggerty v. Wainwright, 5 Cir., 1970, 427 F.2d 1137.
Affirmed.
--------
Notes:
* Rule 18, 5 Cir.; see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Company of New York et al., 5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.
--------
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Dodd, Case Number: 4:13-CR-182-SDJ-CAN
...BOP—has the exclusive authority and discretion to designate the place of an inmate's confinement.") (citing Moore v. U.S. Atty. Gen. , 473 F.2d 1375, 1376 (5th Cir. 1973) (per curiam); Ledesma v. United States , 445 F.2d 1323, 1324 (5th Cir. 1971) (per...
-
Vega v. Bergami, EP-20-CV-127-DCG
...the BOP—has exclusive authority and discretion to designate the place of an inmate's confinement. Moore v. United States Att'y Gen., 473 F.2d 1375, 1376 (5th Cir. 1973); Ledesma v. United States, 445 F.2d 1323, 1324 (5th Cir. 1971). "[A]ny approach that puts the judicial branch in charge of......
-
United States v. Cantu, Criminal Action No. 1:05-CR-458-1
...Inst. , EP-19-CV-97-KC, 2019 WL 1472889, at *3 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 3, 2019) (emphasis added) (citing Moore v. United States Att'y Gen. , 473 F.2d 1375, 1376 (5th Cir. 1973) ; Ledesma v. United States , 445 F.2d 1323, 1324 (5th Cir. 1971) ); see 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b). Moreover, the BOP has "sole d......
-
United States v. McGirt, CRIMINAL CASE NO. 4:16-CR-86
...BOP—has the exclusive authority and discretion to designate the place of an inmate's confinement.") (citing Moore v. U.S. Atty. Gen. , 473 F.2d 1375, 1376 (5th Cir. 1973) (per curiam); Ledesma v. United States , 445 F.2d 1323, 1324 (5th Cir. 1971) (per curiam)). In any event, because this C......
-
United States v. Dodd, Case Number: 4:13-CR-182-SDJ-CAN
...BOP—has the exclusive authority and discretion to designate the place of an inmate's confinement.") (citing Moore v. U.S. Atty. Gen. , 473 F.2d 1375, 1376 (5th Cir. 1973) (per curiam); Ledesma v. United States , 445 F.2d 1323, 1324 (5th Cir. 1971) (per...
-
Vega v. Bergami, EP-20-CV-127-DCG
...the BOP—has exclusive authority and discretion to designate the place of an inmate's confinement. Moore v. United States Att'y Gen., 473 F.2d 1375, 1376 (5th Cir. 1973); Ledesma v. United States, 445 F.2d 1323, 1324 (5th Cir. 1971). "[A]ny approach that puts the judicial branch in charge of......
-
United States v. Cantu, Criminal Action No. 1:05-CR-458-1
...Inst. , EP-19-CV-97-KC, 2019 WL 1472889, at *3 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 3, 2019) (emphasis added) (citing Moore v. United States Att'y Gen. , 473 F.2d 1375, 1376 (5th Cir. 1973) ; Ledesma v. United States , 445 F.2d 1323, 1324 (5th Cir. 1971) ); see 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b). Moreover, the BOP has "sole d......
-
United States v. McGirt, CRIMINAL CASE NO. 4:16-CR-86
...BOP—has the exclusive authority and discretion to designate the place of an inmate's confinement.") (citing Moore v. U.S. Atty. Gen. , 473 F.2d 1375, 1376 (5th Cir. 1973) (per curiam); Ledesma v. United States , 445 F.2d 1323, 1324 (5th Cir. 1971) (per curiam)). In any event, because this C......