Filed: Jul. 08, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 97-50808 Summary Calendar ROBERT L. MOONE, Petitioner-Appellant, versus GARY JOHNSON, Respondent-Appellee. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. A-97-CV-426 - - - - - - - - - - July 1, 1998 Before DUHE’, DeMOSS and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Robert L. Moone, Texas prisoner # 513855, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition.
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 97-50808 Summary Calendar ROBERT L. MOONE, Petitioner-Appellant, versus GARY JOHNSON, Respondent-Appellee. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. A-97-CV-426 - - - - - - - - - - July 1, 1998 Before DUHE’, DeMOSS and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Robert L. Moone, Texas prisoner # 513855, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. ..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-50808
Summary Calendar
ROBERT L. MOONE,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
GARY JOHNSON,
Respondent-Appellee.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. A-97-CV-426
- - - - - - - - - -
July 1, 1998
Before DUHE’, DeMOSS and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Robert L. Moone, Texas prisoner # 513855, appeals the
district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. He
contends that the district court erred in dismissing his § 2254
petition as barred by the one-year statute of limitations in 28
U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). Because Moone’s § 2254 petition was not
filed until May 27, 1997, it was not timely filed within the one-
year statute of limitations period in § 2244(d)(1) which
commenced on April 24, 1996. See United States v. Flores, 135
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 97-50808
-2-
F.3d 1000, 1005 (5th Cir. 1998). Therefore, the district court
did not err in dismissing Moone’s § 2254 petition as barred by
the one-year statute of limitations in § 2244(d)(1).
Id.
Moone’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED.
Moone’s motion for leave to supplement the record on appeal is
also DENIED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL DENIED; MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO SUPPLEMENT RECORD ON APPEAL IS DENIED.