Filed: Sep. 03, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 98-60004 Summary Calendar _ L. S. NEWSOME, Petitioner-Appellant, versus ED LUCAS, Chairman Mississippi Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 1:95-CV-34-BrG September 2, 1999 Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* L. S. Newsome, a Mississippi prisoner, appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 98-60004 Summary Calendar _ L. S. NEWSOME, Petitioner-Appellant, versus ED LUCAS, Chairman Mississippi Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 1:95-CV-34-BrG September 2, 1999 Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* L. S. Newsome, a Mississippi prisoner, appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C...
More
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_________________
No. 98-60004
Summary Calendar
_________________
L. S. NEWSOME,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
ED LUCAS, Chairman Mississippi Department of Corrections,
Respondent-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 1:95-CV-34-BrG
September 2, 1999
Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
L. S. Newsome, a Mississippi prisoner, appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. §
2254 petition. Newsome argues that he was denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial. We have
reviewed the arguments in the briefs, the record, and the applicable law and have applied the
balancing test of Barker v. Wingo,
407 U.S. 514, 530 (1972). We hold that, on balance, the State
did not infringe on Newsome’s constitutional right to a speedy trial. The judgment of the district
court denying habeas relief is AFFIRMED.
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.