Case: 19-10788 Document: 00515612592 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/22/2020
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
October 22, 2020
No. 19-10788 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
James Lewis,
Petitioner—Appellant,
versus
United States of America,
Respondent—Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:18-CV-2306
Before Clement, Higginson, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
James Lewis, federal prisoner # 46457-177, has appealed the denial of
his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging
the computation of his sentence by the Bureau of Prisons. The district court
determined that Lewis had received all of the credits to which he was entitled.
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 19-10788 Document: 00515612592 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/22/2020
No. 19-10788
The entire period between the date of his arrest and the date of his
arrival at the federal prison should have been credited, Lewis contends,
because his federal sentence was ordered to be served concurrently with his
state sentence. This contention is without merit and is not supported by the
record. See 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b). The federal sentence was ordered to be
served consecutively to any parole revocation sentence in Texas case number
F-0756160.
Lewis contends that he did not serve a revocation sentence and that
the district court should have held a hearing to resolve this question. We
have not reached these contentions. See Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co., 183
F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir. 1999) (Ordinarily, “[t]his court will not consider an
issue that a party fails to raise in the district court absent extraordinary
circumstances.”). Lewis contends that he was not provided with a
revocation hearing by the state. This question has not been considered. See
id. We note that the question whether Lewis served a revocation sentence is
not reasonably in dispute; the record contains the “Proclamation of
Revocation and Warrant of Arrest” concerning the revocation of Lewis’s
parole. See United States v. Tubwell, 37 F.3d 175, 179 (5th Cir. 1994).
Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. 5TH CIR. R.
42.2. We WARN Lewis that any future frivolous, repetitive, or otherwise
abusive filings will invite the imposition of sanctions, which may include
dismissal, monetary sanctions, and restrictions on his ability to file pleadings
in this court and any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction. Lewis should
review any pending appeals and actions and move to dismiss any that are
frivolous, repetitive, or otherwise abusive.
2