Salinas v. Texas Parole Board, 5:10-cv-00984

Salinas pleaded guilty on April 30, 1991 to three state offenses with fifteen-year sentences running concurrently.
He was convicted again in 1996 for burglaries and received fifteen years, concurrently with prior sentences.
Salinas was paroled in 2001 and discharged federal custody for a firearm conviction on September 13, 2002; while on parole, he was later convicted of possession of controlled substances in 2003 with six-year terms consecutive to prior sentences.
He previously filed three §2254 petitions challenging state-court sentences and treatment, two of which were resolved/abandoned in 2007 and 2007–2008; the third developed into current proceedings.
The present petition, filed under §2241, challenged sentence calculations and credit for time served, with the Magistrate Judge treating it as a §2254 petition.
The district court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation, dismissed Salinas’ petition, and denied a certificate of appealability on January 31, 2011.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether §2254 or §2241 governs Salinas’ petition	Salinas contends §2241 governs execution, not §2254’s merits.	§2254 governs state-custody petitions; §2241 does not preclude §2254 constraints.	§2254 applies; §2241 not controlling for Salinas.
Whether Salinas’ claims are time-barred under AEDPA	Claims timely under applicable tolling; execution-focused challenge.	Claims barred by §2244(d)(1) one-year limitations and tolling history.	Claims time-barred under AEDPA.
Whether Salinas exhausted state remedies under §2254	State remedies were unavailable or inadequate to protect rights.	Salinas failed to exhaust and relief was precluded.	Objections insufficient; exhaustion not satisfied; precluded analysis.
Whether the petition was properly adjudicated and COA should be denied	Request for de novo review of objections under §2241 should apply.	Governing statute is §2254; de novo review under §636(b)(1) applied.	Court adopted Magistrate Judge and dismissed; COA denied.

Lombardi, Inc. v. Smithfield, 11 A.3d 1180 (Del. 1989) (not used here; placeholder if needed)
Hearth Admins., Corp v. City of New York, 394 F.3d 382 (2d Cir. 2012) (public policy arguments rarely factor into preliminary injunctions)
Barzingus v. Wilheim, 306 F.3d 17 (10th Cir. 2010) (arbitration standards akin to summary judgment standards)
United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219 (5th Cir. 1989) (de novo review standards for objections to magistrate judge's report)
Battle v. United States Parole Commission, 834 F.2d 419 (5th Cir. 1987) (frivolous or general objections need not trigger de novo review)
Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (U.S. 2006) (exhaustion of administrative remedies required for habeas petitions)
Coady v. Vaughn, 251 F.3d 480 (3d Cir. 2001) (statutory interpretation—specific fixes trump general statutes)
Edmond v. U.S., 520 U.S. 651 (1997) (statutory interpretation principles for overlapping remedies)
Varity Corp. v. Howe, 516 U.S. 489 (1996) (statutes covering same situation; specific controls)