Fifth Circuit Court Cases - Case Law and Opinions from the 5th Circuit Federal Court - Court of Appeals

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinions - 5th Circuit
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE

This opinion or court case is from the Fifth Circuit Court or Appeals. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-40649
Summary Calendar

GEORGE WILLIAM RIECK, JR.,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
JANIE COCKRELL, DIRECTOR,
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,
Respondent-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
--------------------
January 21, 2003
Before JONES, DUHÉ, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
George W. Rieck, Jr., Texas prisoner # 654389, was convicted
of indecency with a child and was sentenced to 16 years in prison.
He was released on mandatory supervision, but it was revoked when
he failed to abide by its conditions and was involuntarily
discharged from a sex offender counseling program. He filed the
instant 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition to challenge the revocation of
his mandatory supervision. The district court denied him relief,
and this court granted him a certificate of appealability on the
issue "whether the revocation of [his] mandatory supervision due to

his failure to comply with the statute requiring him to attend sex
offender counseling which was enacted after he was convicted and
sentenced is a violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause."
This court applies an "intent-effects" test to determine
whether a law is punitive and thus violates the Ex Post Facto
Clause. See Moore v. Avoyelles Correctional Center, 253 F.3d 870,
872-73 (5th Cir. 2001). Under this test, "courts ask whether 1)
the legislature intended the sanction to be punitive, and 2) the
sanction is `so punitive' in effect as to prevent courts from
legitimately viewing it as regulatory or civil in nature." Id.
Our analysis of the law at issue here convinces us that it was
not intended to be punitive and serves important nonpunitive goals.
See id.; see also McKune v. Lile, 122 S. Ct. 2017, 2023-26 (2002);
Kansas v. Hendricks, 421 U.S. 346, 350 (1997). Rieck has not shown
that the state courts acted unreasonably in rejecting this claim.
See DiLosa v. Cain, 279 F.3d 259, 262 (5th Cir. 2002); see also
Lockhart v. Johnson, 104 F.3d 54, 56-57 (5th Cir. 1997).
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
2