DeLeon v. Department of Corrections

Second Circuit

DeLeon v. Department of Corrections

35 F. App'x 28

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedMay 28, 2002

DocketDocket No. 01-2094

StatusPublished

This text of 35 F. App'x 28 (DeLeon v. Department of Corrections) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

DeLeon v. Department of Corrections, 35 F. App'x 28 (2d Cir. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

This cause came on to be heard on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, and was submitted by petitioner pro se and by counsel for respondent.

ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, it is now hereby ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment of said District Court be and it hereby is affirmed substantially for the reasons stated in Judge Thompson’s Ruling on Petition for Habeas Corpus, dated January 3, 2001. The relevant state-court ruling neither “was contrary to,” nor “involved an unreasonable application of ...” clearly established federal law, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States, see generally Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 413, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000).

Issues argued by petitioner on appeal that were not raised in the district court are not properly before us, and the record here does not indicate that they must be entertained in the interests of justice. See generally Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 121, 96 S.Ct. 2868, 49 L.Ed.2d 826 (1976).

We have considered all of petitioner’s contentions that are properly before us and have found them to be without merit. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SUMMARY ORDER

This cause came on to be heard on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, and was submitted by petitioner pro se and by counsel for respondent.

ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, it is now hereby ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment of said District Court be and it hereby is affirmed substantially for the reasons stated in Judge Thompson’s Ruling on Petition for Habeas Corpus, dated January 3, 2001. The relevant state-court ruling neither “was contrary to,” nor “involved an unreasonable application of ...” clearly established federal law, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States, see generally Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 413, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000).

Issues argued by petitioner on appeal that were not raised in the district court are not properly before us, and the record here does not indicate that they must be entertained in the interests of justice. See generally Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 121, 96 S.Ct. 2868, 49 L.Ed.2d 826 (1976).

We have considered all of petitioner’s contentions that are properly before us and have found them to be without merit. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 F. App'x 28, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/deleon-v-department-of-corrections-ca2-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack