Thomas Eugene Hensley v. Michael W. Moore

Eleventh Circuit

Thomas Eugene Hensley v. Michael W. Moore

281 F.3d 1208, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 1802, 2002 WL 185472

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

DecidedFebruary 6, 2002

Docket00-15579

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 281 F.3d 1208 (Thomas Eugene Hensley v. Michael W. Moore) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Thomas Eugene Hensley v. Michael W. Moore, 281 F.3d 1208, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 1802, 2002 WL 185472 (11th Cir. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The question presented by the certificate of appealability in this case, which was brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to challenge the constitutional validity of a 1974 rape conviction, is essentially: whether the one-year statute of limitations created by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 was tolled by petitioner’s previously filed federal petition seeking the same § 2254 relief. The Supreme Court has answered this question in the negative. See Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 121 S.Ct. 2120, 2129, 150 L.Ed.2d 251 (2001). 1

AFFIRMED.

1

. In his brief on appeal (filed by his court appointed lawyer), petitioner asks us to hold the present habeas petition timely by invoking the principle of "equitable tolling.” To do this we would have to amend the certificate of appealability. We do have the authority to amend the certificate, but we decline to exercise it because petitioner did not present his equitable tolling argument to the district court.

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

PER CURIAM:

The question presented by the certificate of appealability in this case, which was brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to challenge the constitutional validity of a 1974 rape conviction, is essentially: whether the one-year statute of limitations created by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 was tolled by petitioner’s previously filed federal petition seeking the same § 2254 relief. The Supreme Court has answered this question in the negative. See Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 121 S.Ct. 2120, 2129, 150 L.Ed.2d 251 (2001). 1

AFFIRMED.

1

. In his brief on appeal (filed by his court appointed lawyer), petitioner asks us to hold the present habeas petition timely by invoking the principle of "equitable tolling.” To do this we would have to amend the certificate of appealability. We do have the authority to amend the certificate, but we decline to exercise it because petitioner did not present his equitable tolling argument to the district court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 F.3d 1208, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 1802, 2002 WL 185472, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-eugene-hensley-v-michael-w-moore-ca11-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack