IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-41291
Conference Calendar
RICHARD WARD,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
CHANDLER, Warden; US PENITENTIARY, Beaumont,
Respondents-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:99-CV-490
--------------------
June 13, 2000
Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Richard Charles Ward (#12020-018), a federal prisoner
incarcerated at FCC Beaumont, filed a pro se application for a
writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging the
Bureau of Prisons's refusal to credit him for time served while
in state custody. The district court denied the application and
Ward has appealed.
Ward, who is represented by counsel on appeal, has not
briefed the question whether he can be required to serve his
sentences in installments. Because Ward has not briefed this
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 99-41291
-2-
issue, it is waived. Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff
Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).
Ward has raised two new issues: (1) whether the Bureau of
Prisons's refusal to run Ward's federal sentences concurrent with
his state sentences violates his plea agreement with the
Government and (2) whether the sentencing court's oral
pronouncement, sentencing Ward to concurrent 13-month terms of
imprisonment, takes precedence over its written judgment,
sentencing him to concurrent 103-month terms of imprisonment. We
do not reach these issues because they have been raised for the
first time on appeal and do not involve purely legal questions.
Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991).
Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See
Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR. R.
42.2.
APPEAL DISMISSED.