Filed: May 05, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 16-1925 _ Keith Allen Deaton lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner - Appellant v. Wendy Kelley, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent - Appellee _ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Pine Bluff _ Submitted: May 5, 2017 Filed: May 5, 2017 [Unpublished] _ Before GRUENDER, ARNOLD, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Following a remand in Deaton v. Hobbs, 561
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 16-1925 _ Keith Allen Deaton lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner - Appellant v. Wendy Kelley, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent - Appellee _ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Pine Bluff _ Submitted: May 5, 2017 Filed: May 5, 2017 [Unpublished] _ Before GRUENDER, ARNOLD, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Following a remand in Deaton v. Hobbs, 561 F..
More
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 16-1925
___________________________
Keith Allen Deaton
lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner - Appellant
v.
Wendy Kelley, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction
lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent - Appellee
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Pine Bluff
____________
Submitted: May 5, 2017
Filed: May 5, 2017
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRUENDER, ARNOLD, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Following a remand in Deaton v. Hobbs, 561 Fed. Appx. 584 (8th Cir. 2014)
(per curiam), the district court1 conducted an evidentiary hearing and afterward
1
The Honorable Brian S. Miller, Chief Judge for the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
concluded that Keith Deaton was unable to meet the demanding actual-innocence
standard to toll the expiration of the statute of limitations for his 28 U.S.C. § 2254
petition. Accordingly, the district court denied Deaton’s habeas petition as untimely,
and he appeals. Because we agree with the district court that Deaton’s evidence was
not sufficient to establish that “no juror, acting reasonably, would have voted to find
him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt,” see McQuiggin v. Perkins,
133 S. Ct. 1924,
1928 (2013), we affirm.
______________________________
-2-