Reeves v. Clark

Fourth Circuit

Reeves v. Clark

114 F. App'x 523

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 14, 2004

Docket04-6518

StatusUnpublished

This text of 114 F. App'x 523 (Reeves v. Clark) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Reeves v. Clark, 114 F. App'x 523 (4th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Leonard Reeves appeals a district court order and judgment dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The district court granted Reeves’ request for a certificate of appealability (“COA”) as to when the denial by the North Carolina Supreme Court of a petition for writ of certiorari in a direct criminal appeal ceased to be pending for purposes of filing a petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court. We affirm the district court’s conclusion that the North Carolina Supreme Court’s denial of a petition for writ of certiorari in a direct criminal appeal ceased to be pending on the date it was denied. In this case, the petition ceased to be pending on December 18, 2001. Thus, Reeves’ § 2254 petition, filed on June 3, 2003, was untimely.

In his brief, Reeves raises issues which were not granted a COA. Nor did Reeves follow the procedures outlined in Reid v. True, 349 F.3d 788, 796 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1097, 124 S.Ct. 979, 157 L.Ed.2d 810 (2003), with respect to filing a brief containing issues which were not granted a COA. Prior to Reeves filing his brief, this Court denied Reeves’ motion to expand the COA to include an issue regarding equitable tolling of the one-year limitations period in which to file a § 2254 (2000) petition. In addition, the district court denied a COA as to a similar issue and also denied Reeves’ request for a COA as to whether the period in which to file a petition for writ of certiorari with the *524 United States Supreme Court commenced when he received notice that the North Carolina Supreme Court denied his petition for writ of certiorari. This Court will not consider issues not specified in a COA. See Phelps v. Alameda, 366 F.3d 722, 729 (9th Cir.2004); Wright v. Norris, 299 F.3d 926, 928 (8th Cir.2002).

Accordingly, we affirm that part of the district court’s order finding Reeves’ § 2254 petition untimely because the state order denying a petition for writ of certiorari became final the date it was entered. With respect to all other issues, the appeal is dismissed. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART

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

PER CURIAM:

Leonard Reeves appeals a district court order and judgment dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The district court granted Reeves’ request for a certificate of appealability (“COA”) as to when the denial by the North Carolina Supreme Court of a petition for writ of certiorari in a direct criminal appeal ceased to be pending for purposes of filing a petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court. We affirm the district court’s conclusion that the North Carolina Supreme Court’s denial of a petition for writ of certiorari in a direct criminal appeal ceased to be pending on the date it was denied. In this case, the petition ceased to be pending on December 18, 2001. Thus, Reeves’ § 2254 petition, filed on June 3, 2003, was untimely.

In his brief, Reeves raises issues which were not granted a COA. Nor did Reeves follow the procedures outlined in Reid v. True, 349 F.3d 788, 796 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1097, 124 S.Ct. 979, 157 L.Ed.2d 810 (2003), with respect to filing a brief containing issues which were not granted a COA. Prior to Reeves filing his brief, this Court denied Reeves’ motion to expand the COA to include an issue regarding equitable tolling of the one-year limitations period in which to file a § 2254 (2000) petition. In addition, the district court denied a COA as to a similar issue and also denied Reeves’ request for a COA as to whether the period in which to file a petition for writ of certiorari with the *524 United States Supreme Court commenced when he received notice that the North Carolina Supreme Court denied his petition for writ of certiorari. This Court will not consider issues not specified in a COA. See Phelps v. Alameda, 366 F.3d 722, 729 (9th Cir.2004); Wright v. Norris, 299 F.3d 926, 928 (8th Cir.2002).

Accordingly, we affirm that part of the district court’s order finding Reeves’ § 2254 petition untimely because the state order denying a petition for writ of certiorari became final the date it was entered. With respect to all other issues, the appeal is dismissed. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

114 F. App'x 523, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reeves-v-clark-ca4-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack