USA v. Christopher Johnson, No. 11-60474 (5th Cir. 2012)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 11-60474 Document: 00511768417 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/27/2012 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 11-60474 Summary Calendar February 27, 2012 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. CHRISTOPHER L. JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 1:02-CR-57-1 Before GARZA, SOUTHWICK, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Following his conviction for one charge of possessing between five and 50 grams of cocaine base with intent to distribute, Christopher L. Johnson, prisoner # 07372-043, was sentenced to serve 188 months in prison and a five-year term of supervised release. Johnson filed a motion requesting a nunc pro tunc judgment that is best construed as arising under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 because it raised a claim seeking credit towards Johnson s federal sentence for time previously spent in state custody. See United States v. Brown, 753 F.2d 455, 456 * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. Case: 11-60474 Document: 00511768417 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/27/2012 No. 11-60474 (5th Cir. 1985). The district court denied Johnson s motion, and he now moves this court for authorization to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. Our review of the record and pertinent authority shows that the district court, which sentenced Johnson, lacked jurisdiction over Johnson s § 2241 petition because this petition should have been filed in the district where he was incarcerated. See Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 451 (5th Cir. 2000). Consequently, the district court should have dismissed Johnson s § 2241 petition for want of jurisdiction. Johnson s motion to proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED, and his appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.