Filed: Sep. 03, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 96-30892 _ JOHN A. MORAN, Petitioner, versus RICHARD L. STALDER, SECRETARY LA. DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana _ August 19, 1997 Before JONES, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* This is a successive habeas petition filed in the district court in February 1996, before the effective date of the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 96-30892 _ JOHN A. MORAN, Petitioner, versus RICHARD L. STALDER, SECRETARY LA. DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana _ August 19, 1997 Before JONES, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* This is a successive habeas petition filed in the district court in February 1996, before the effective date of the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act...
More
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_______________________
No. 96-30892
_______________________
JOHN A. MORAN,
Petitioner,
versus
RICHARD L. STALDER, SECRETARY
LA. DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
_________________________________________________________________
August 19, 1997
Before JONES, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
This is a successive habeas petition filed in the
district court in February 1996, before the effective date of the
Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. The district court
held, and we initially agreed, that because the petition was
pending at the effective date of the AEDPA, petitioner Moran was
required to obtain a certificate of appealability in this court
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
pursuant to newly enacted § 2244(b). As it turned out, the Supreme
Court did not agree with this position. Lindh v. Murphy, ___ S.Ct.
___ (1997), and it has held the COA requirement inapplicable to
petitions filed before the effective date of AEDPA. Consequently,
we must reverse and remand for consideration of Moran’s petition in
the district court pursuant to pre-AEDPA standards.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
2