Filed: Jun. 08, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 07-3796 _ Patrick Robertson, * * Appellant, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * Eastern District of Arkansas. * Larry Norris, Director, Arkansas * [UNPUBLISHED] Department of Correction, * * Appellee. * _ Submitted: June 4, 2009 Filed: June 8, 2009 _ Before RILEY, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Arkansas inmate Patrick Robertson appeals after the district court1 dismissed as time-barred his 28
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 07-3796 _ Patrick Robertson, * * Appellant, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * Eastern District of Arkansas. * Larry Norris, Director, Arkansas * [UNPUBLISHED] Department of Correction, * * Appellee. * _ Submitted: June 4, 2009 Filed: June 8, 2009 _ Before RILEY, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Arkansas inmate Patrick Robertson appeals after the district court1 dismissed as time-barred his 28 U..
More
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 07-3796
___________
Patrick Robertson, *
*
Appellant, * Appeal from the United States
* District Court for the
v. * Eastern District of Arkansas.
*
Larry Norris, Director, Arkansas * [UNPUBLISHED]
Department of Correction, *
*
Appellee. *
___________
Submitted: June 4, 2009
Filed: June 8, 2009
___________
Before RILEY, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Arkansas inmate Patrick Robertson appeals after the district court1 dismissed
as time-barred his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging his parole classification.
Upon de novo review, see Painter v. Iowa,
247 F.3d 1255, 1256 (8th Cir. 2001), and
1
The Honorable J. Leon Holmes, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the
Honorable Beth Deere, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of
Arkansas.
careful consideration of the arguments on appeal, we agree with the district court’s
conclusion that the petition was untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1).
Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________
-2-