U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 1998

Gaines v. Corcoran

Gaines v. Corcoran
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided August 10, 1998

Gaines v. Corcoran

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6649

CONRAD R. GAINES, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus

THOMAS R. CORCORAN; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-97-3964-AW)

Submitted: July 22, 1998 Decided: August 10, 1998

Before ERVIN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Conrad R. Gaines, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Regina Hollins Lewis, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). The district court dismissed Appellant’s § 2254 petition as untimely pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2244(d) (West Supp. 1998). We need not decide whether the district court properly found that Appellant’s second state habeas petition did not constitute a proper filing under § 2244(d). Even assuming Appellant’s state habeas petition was properly filed, his federal habeas petition is still untimely.

After Appellant filed his second state habeas petition on February 26, 1997, he had at most fifty-seven days remaining in the one-year statute of limitations period under § 2244(d). Conse- quently, when the state court denied his state habeas petition on September 5, 1997, Appellant had until November 3, 1997 (fifty- seven days), to file his federal habeas petition. Because Appellant did not seek federal habeas review until November 24, 1997, we find his § 2254 petition untimely.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dis- miss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.