| Keyword |
Case |
Docket |
Date: Filed /
Added |
(11591 bytes)
(7348 bytes)
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
This habeas corpus action is from a state conviction in which Petitioner
claims a denial of his right to speedy trial and error in admission of certain
evidence. The trial court on de novo review adopted the recommendation of the
magistrate judge and denied a certificate of appealability. Petitioner has renewed
his request for a certificate of appealability with this court.
This appeal was challenged because it appeared from the preliminary
record that the notice of appeal was untimely. The judgment denying Petitioner's
§ 2254 petition was entered on March 16, 2001. The deadline for filing the
appeal was April 16, 2001. The district court docketed the notice of appeal as
being filed on April 24, 2001. However, the certificate of service for the notice
of appeal is dated April 2, 2001, and Petitioner claims that he gave the notice of
appeal to prison authorities to mail on April 2, 2001. A pro se prisoner's notice
of appeal is deemed filed when it is given to prison officials for forwarding to the
district court. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).
Therefore, we find that we have jurisdiction in this case.
We have reviewed the brief on appeal, the record so far as it is relevant,
and the magistrate judge's recommendation which the trial court adopted. For
the reasons fully set forth in the magistrate judge's recommendation, we conclude
that this appeal does not satisfy our oft stated requirements for the issuance of a
certificate of appealability. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 474 (2000).
Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of a denial of a federal right. He
has raised no arguments which require further proceedings or that are debatable
among jurists of reason. See id.
We DENY Petitioner's request for a certificate of appealability and
DISMISS the appeal.
Entered for the Court
Monroe G. McKay
Circuit Judge
*. This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
JOHN AUGUSTUS,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
JOE WILLIAMS, Warden, Lea
County Correctional Facility, and
ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE
STATE OF NEW MEXICO,
Respondents-Appellees.
Before SEYMOUR and McKAY, Circuit Judges, and
BRORBY, Senior Circuit
Judge.
After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this panel has
determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the
determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G).
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Click footnote number to return to corresponding location in the text.
| Keyword |
Case |
Docket |
Date: Filed /
Added |
(11591 bytes)
(7348 bytes)
Comments to: WebMaster,
ca10 [at] washburnlaw.edu.
Updated: December 24, 2001.
HTML markup © 2001, Washburn University School of Law.
URL: http://ca10.washburnlaw.edu/cases/2001/12/01-2136.htm.