UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6393

JAMES M. DEBARDELEBEN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

BILL HEDRICK, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CA-97-661-AM)

Submitted: October 8, 1998 Decided: November 16, 1998

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James M. DeBardeleben, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:

James M. DeBardeleben appeals from the district court’s order

denying his motion for reconsideration filed pursuant to Fed. R.

Civ. P. 59(e) of the court’s order denying relief on his petition

filed pursuant to

(West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We

have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find

no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny DeBardeleben’s motion to

proceed in forma pauperis, deny his motion for a certificate of

appealability, and dismiss the appeal, although on the alternative

ground that DeBardeleben’s initial petition was filed outside the

one-year limitations period imposed by

(d)(1)

(West 1994 & Supp. 1998).* DeBardeleben’s motions “to disqualify

Judges Russell, Phillips, and Murnaghan,” “for hearing of appeal on

original record without appendix,” and “to waive 50 page brief

limit” are denied as moot. DeBardeleben’s motions “for decision by

unbiased judge due to Clerk Connor’s harassment” and “for Clerk

Connor to acknowledge pleadings and terminate conspiracy to sabo-

tage appeal” are denied as baseless. We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

* DeBardeleben’s conviction became final in 1990, and he did not file his initial § 2254 petition until April 29, 1997 -- more than one year after the date the conviction became final and more than one year after the effective date of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996,

Stat. 1214.

2 the materials before the court and argument would not aid the deci-

sional process.

DISMISSED

3