Richard v. Kaylo

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: July 22, 2002
• Docket: 02-30070
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 19 2002 FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge Clerk No. 02-30070

Summary Calendar

RYAN RICHARD,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

BARON KAYLO, Warden,

Respondent-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 01-CV-2294-H - - - - - - - - - -

Before DeMOSS, PARKER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ryan Richard, Louisiana prisoner # 353246, appeals the

district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for

habeas relief. Richard argues that 1) his guilty plea was not

knowingly and intelligently made because the trial court failed

to inform him of the nature of, and elements comprising, the

manslaughter offense, and 2) he received ineffective assistance

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. No. 02-30070 -2-

of counsel because his attorney failed to advise him of the

nature and elements of manslaughter.

Richard has filed a letter with this court, which we

construe as a motion seeking reconsideration of the clerk’s

office’s determination that Richard’s reply brief was untimely

filed. Because the Appellee has not filed a response opposing

Richard’s request, and in the interest of affording Richard every

advantage in this pro se appeal, his motion is GRANTED.

We have reviewed the record and the briefs submitted by the

parties and hold that Richard fails to meet his burden of

establishing that the state court’s adjudication of his claims

resulted in a decision that was contrary to Federal law, or was

based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of

the evidence presented in the state court proceedings. See 28

U.S.C. § 2254(d); Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 244 (1969);

Henderson v. Morgan, 426 U.S. 637, 646-47 (1976); Strickland v.

Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984); Bonvillain v. Blackburn,

780 F.2d 1248, 1251 (5th Cir. 1986). Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.