Hinton v. Corcoran ( 1999 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 99-6156
    WILLIAM R. HINTON,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    THOMAS R. CORCORAN; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
    STATE OF MARYLAND,
    Respondents - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA-
    98-2146-DKC)
    Submitted:   April 20, 1999                    Decided:   May 4, 1999
    Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit
    Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    William R. Hinton, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., At-
    torney General, David Jonathan Taube, Assistant Attorney General,
    Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND,
    Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    William R. Hinton appeals the district court’s order denying
    relief on his petition filed under 
    28 U.S.C.A. § 2254
     (West 1994 &
    Supp. 1998).    We find that Hinton’s petition was barred by the one-
    year statute of limitations. See 
    28 U.S.C.A. § 2244
    (d) (West Supp.
    1998).   Hinton had until April 23, 1997, to file his federal habeas
    petition.     See Brown v. Angelone, 
    150 F.3d 370
    , 375-76 (4th Cir.
    1998).   The limitations period was tolled on April 18, 1997, when
    Hinton’s state petition was properly filed. The state petition re-
    mained pending until June 5, 1998.     Thus, Hinton had until June 11,
    1998, to file his federal habeas petition.     Hinton did not file the
    petition until June 30, 1998.     Accordingly, we deny a certificate
    of appealability and dismiss the appeal.       We dispense with oral
    argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
    presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
    aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 99-6156

Filed Date: 5/4/1999

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021