Eric Randall Nance v. Larry Norris

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedNovember 22, 2005
Docket05-4090
StatusPublished

This text of Eric Randall Nance v. Larry Norris (Eric Randall Nance v. Larry Norris) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Eric Randall Nance v. Larry Norris, (8th Cir. 2005).

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________

No. 05-4090 ___________

Eric Randall Nance, * * Petitioner/Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Eastern * District of Arkansas Larry Norris, Director, * Arkansas Department of * [PUBLISHED] Correction, * * Respondent/Appellant. * ___________

Submitted: November 22, 2005 Filed: November 22, 2005 ___________

Before ARNOLD, BEAM, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges. ___________

PER CURIAM.

Before the court is respondent's motion to vacate a stay of execution entered by the district court. We grant the motion and vacate the stay.

On November 14, 2005, petitioner filed a pleading captioned "Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus" accompanied by a motion for stay of execution. The district court construed the petition as a requested amendment to the previously filed1 petition in district court, case number: 5:00-CV-00339 ("CV-00339"). The district court, after making findings of fact and conclusions of law, granted a motion to amend the habeas corpus petition, and granted the stay of execution.

On January 24, 2005, petitioner filed a petition to remand in CV:00339 seeking the same relief sought in the present filings. Construing the motion to remand as a motion to file a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2244 habeas petition, we denied the motion. We view the present filings as yet another attempt to avoid the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A).

Accordingly, we deny a motion for interlocutory appeal, vacate the district court's stay of execution and dismiss the petition for habeas corpus. ______________________________

1 On January 23, 2003, the district court denied habeas relief and dismissed CV- 00339. We affirmed this action on December 10, 2004. Our mandate issued on October 12, 2005. The case is closed.

-2-

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

Related

Finality of determination
28 U.S.C. § 2244

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Eric Randall Nance v. Larry Norris, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eric-randall-nance-v-larry-norris-ca8-2005.