Harris v. Arkansas, 5:18-cv-157-DPM. (2019)
Court: District Court, E.D. Arkansas
Number: infdco20190205794
Visitors: 14
Filed: Feb. 04, 2019
Latest Update: Feb. 04, 2019
Summary: ORDER D.P. MARSHALL, JR. , District Judge . On de novo review, the Court adopts Magistrate Judge Ray's recommendation, N o 13, and overrules Harris's objections, N o 14. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). Contrary to Harris's argument, he was not sentenced as a habitual offender; he is ineligible for parole based on a different statute. Compare ARK. CODE ANN. 5-4-501(c)(1) with ARK. CODE ANN. 16-93-609(b); see also N o 9-3 at 5. And Harris hasn't shown that the State c
Summary: ORDER D.P. MARSHALL, JR. , District Judge . On de novo review, the Court adopts Magistrate Judge Ray's recommendation, N o 13, and overrules Harris's objections, N o 14. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). Contrary to Harris's argument, he was not sentenced as a habitual offender; he is ineligible for parole based on a different statute. Compare ARK. CODE ANN. 5-4-501(c)(1) with ARK. CODE ANN. 16-93-609(b); see also N o 9-3 at 5. And Harris hasn't shown that the State co..
More
ORDER
D.P. MARSHALL, JR., District Judge.
On de novo review, the Court adopts Magistrate Judge Ray's recommendation, No 13, and overrules Harris's objections, No 14. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). Contrary to Harris's argument, he was not sentenced as a habitual offender; he is ineligible for parole based on a different statute. Compare ARK. CODE ANN. § 5-4-501(c)(1) with ARK. CODE ANN. § 16-93-609(b); see also No 9-3 at 5. And Harris hasn't shown that the State courts misapplied clearly established law or made unreasonable factual findings. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1)-(2). His petition will therefore be dismissed with prejudice. No certificate of appealability will issue. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)-(2).
So Ordered.
Source: Leagle
