Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Pilkenton v. Braxton, 4th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Roy David Pilkenton's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. §2254 habeas corpus petition and denial of his Rule 59(e) motion. The district court had found Pilkenton's §2254 petition untimely. The Fourth Circuit affirmed, noting that Pilkenton's conviction became final before the effective date of AEDPA and that the one-year limitation period for filing his §2254 petition expired on April 23, 1997, yet he did not file until June 10, 1998. Therefore, the Fourth Circuit dismissed Pilkenton's appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1998-10-21 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 98-7112

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Roy David Pilkenton's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. §2254 habeas corpus petition and denial of his Rule 59(e) motion. The district court had found Pilkenton's §2254 petition untimely. The Fourth Circuit affirmed, noting that Pilkenton's conviction became final before the effective date of AEDPA and that the one-year limitation period for filing his §2254 petition expired on April 23, 1997, yet he did not file until June 10, 1998. Therefore, the Fourth Circuit dismissed Pilkenton's appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    5 views2 pages

    Pilkenton v. Braxton, 4th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Roy David Pilkenton's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. §2254 habeas corpus petition and denial of his Rule 59(e) motion. The district court had found Pilkenton's §2254 petition untimely. The Fourth Circuit affirmed, noting that Pilkenton's conviction became final before the effective date of AEDPA and that the one-year limitation period for filing his §2254 petition expired on April 23, 1997, yet he did not file until June 10, 1998. Therefore, the Fourth Circuit dismissed Pilkenton's appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 98-7112

    ROY DAVID PILKENTON,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    D. A. BRAXTON,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge.
    (CA-98-376-R)

    Submitted:

    September 30, 1998

    Decided:

    October 21, 1998

    Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Roy David Pilkenton, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Roy David Pilkenton, a Virginia inmate, seeks to appeal the
    district

    courts

    orders

    denying

    his

    petition

    filed

    under

    28

    U.S.C.A. 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998), as untimely filed, and
    denying his motion to alter or amend the judgment under Fed. R.
    Civ. P. 59(e). We have reviewed the record and the district courts
    opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal substantially on
    the reasoning of the district court. Pilkenton v. Braxton, No. CA98-376-R

    (W.D.

    Va.

    June

    10

    &

    June

    29,

    1998).

    We

    note

    that

    Pilkentons conviction became final before the effective date of


    the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L.
    No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214, and he filed his 2254 petition on
    June 10, 1998. The one-year limitation period expired on April 23,
    1997. Thus, Pilkentons petition was not timely filed in the district court. See Brown v. Angelone, 150 F.3d 370 (4th Cir. 1998).
    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the material before the court and
    argument would not aid the decisional process.

    DISMISSED

    You might also like