Sanders v. State of Louisiana ( 2000 )


Menu:
  •                              No. 99-30723
    -1-
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    No. 99-30723
    Summary Calendar
    ROYAL SANDERS,
    Petitioner-Appellant,
    versus
    STATE OF LOUISIANA,
    Respondent-Appellee.
    --------------------
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Louisiana
    USDC No. 98-CV-2836-K
    --------------------
    January 21, 2000
    Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Royal Sanders, Louisiana prisoner # 107157, appeals the
    district court’s denial of his § 2254 application for a writ of
    habeas corpus as barred by the one-year statute of limitations
    set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1), as amended by the
    Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.     He
    contends that the limitations period should have been equitably
    tolled because he did not receive notice that the Louisiana
    Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal had denied his application for a
    supervisory writ.
    *
    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    that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
    No. 99-30723
    -2-
    Sanders did not file timely objections to the magistrate
    judge’s report, which recommended that his § 2254 application be
    dismissed as time-barred.   Accordingly, this court will review
    the district court’s decision for plain error only.   Douglass v.
    United Services Auto. Ass’n, 
    79 F.3d 1415
    , 1430 (5th Cir. 1996)
    (en banc).   Sanders’s equitable tolling argument requires the
    resolution of factual issues not addressed by the district court.
    For a fact issue to be properly asserted as plain error on
    appeal, it must be one arising outside of the district court’s
    power to resolve.   See United States v. Alvarado-Saldivar, 
    62 F.3d 697
    , 700 (5th Cir. 1995).   Sanders’s equitable tolling
    argument could have been decided by the district court.   Sanders
    has not shown the district court committed error, plain or
    otherwise, in dismissing his § 2254 application as time-barred.
    AFFIRMED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 99-30723

Filed Date: 1/25/2000

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021