Brian Barksdale v. Lorie Davis, Director ( 2018 )

Case: 16-10813 Document: 00514505594 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/08/2018
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 16-10813 June 8, 2018
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
BRIAN BARKSDALE,
Petitioner-Appellant
v.
LORIE DAVIS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL
JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION,
Respondent-Appellee
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:15-CV-3080
Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and ELROD and HIGGINSON, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Brian Barksdale, Texas prisoner # 711336, has appealed the district
court’s judgment dismissing his application for a writ of habeas corpus
challenging the respondent’s denial of street-time-credit upon revocation of his
parole in 2014. We previously granted a certificate of appealability with
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
Case: 16-10813 Document: 00514505594 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/08/2018
No. 16-10813
respect to the question whether the district court erred in determining that
Barksdale was not eligible for street-time credit under Texas Government
Code § 508.283 because he was a person described in Texas Government Code
§ 508.149(a)(11).
We will defer to the state court’s determination that Barksdale was
ineligible for street-time credit as a matter of state law and, therefore, had not
been denied a right guaranteed by the United States Constitution. See Charles
v. Thaler, 629 F.3d 494, 500-01 (5th Cir. 2011). Barksdale has not shown that
the state court’s ruling “was so lacking in justification that there was an error
well understood and comprehended in existing law beyond any possibility for
fairminded disagreement.” Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 103 (2011). He
has not shown that the state-court decision was both incorrect and objectively
unreasonable. See Woodford v. Visciotti, 537 U.S. 19, 27 (2002). The judgment
is AFFIRMED.
2