UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_______________________
No. 97-10251
Summary Calendar
_______________________
MICHAEL WAYNE BOHANNAN,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT
OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,
Respondent-Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
(4:96-CV-326)
_________________________________________________________________
April 1, 1999
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.*
EDITH H. JONES, Circuit Judge:
Michael Wayne Bohannan, Texas prisoner # 366986, appeals
the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. A
certificate of appealability was granted for Bohannan’s appeal.
Bohannan argues 1) that his plea agreement was violated
when he was not returned to the Texas Department of Criminal
Justice-Institutional Division (TDCJ) following the revocation of
his mandatory supervision and 2) that he was denied the restoration
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
of good-time credits, which had been forfeited when his mandatory
supervision was revoked. He contends that the TDCJ had a policy in
effect at the time of his mandatory-supervision revocation, which
allowed for the restoration of good-time credits, but that by the
time he was placed in a TDCJ facility, the TDCJ policy had changed
to disallow the restoration to prisoners convicted of a violent
offense.
Bohannan has not shown that his plea agreement included
a promise that he would be returned to a TDCJ facility if his
mandatory supervision was revoked and he was again incarcerated.
He has thus not demonstrated that his plea agreement was breached.
See Smith v. Blackburn, 785 F.2d 545, 548 (5th Cir. 1986) (prisoner
must prove exact terms of alleged promise).
A COA was not granted on the issue whether Bohannan was
denied a constitutional right by not having his good time credits,
which were forfeited when his mandatory supervision was revoked,
restored. We therefore cannot review this issue. See Lackey v.
Johnson, 116 F.3d 149, 151-52 (5th Cir. 1997). Furthermore,
Bohannan’s argument is without merit. See Hallmark v. Johnson, 118
F.3d 1073, 1079-80 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 118 S.Ct. 576 (1997).
The district court’s denial of Bohannan’s habeas claims
is AFFIRMED. The respondent’s motion to amend the appellate record
and Bohannan’s motion for injunctive relief pending this court’s
decision on his appeal are DENIED.
2