Case ID: f-appx_100/html/0977-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM:\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Bryan Keith KANGAS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Doug DRETKE, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 03-41013.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    June 16, 2004.
    Bryan Keith Kangas, Tennessee Colony, TX, pro se.
    Elizabeth A Goettert, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Texas, Austin, TX, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Bryan Keith Kangas (Kangas), Texas prisoner # 824966, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his application for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Kangas filed the application to challenge his 50-year sentence for injury to a child. The district court granted a certificate of appealability (COA) on whether Kangas’s delayed receipt of the state court’s notice regarding the denial of his application for state habeas relief could equitably toll the one-year statute of limitations under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA).

This court reviews a district court’s decision whether to apply equitable tolling for abuse of discretion. Fisher v. Johnson, 174 F.3d 710, 713 (5th Cir.1999). The AEDPA’s statute of limitations may be equitably tolled, but only in “rare and exceptional circumstances.” Felder v. Johnson, 204 F.3d 168, 170-171 (5th Cir.2000). The state’s delay of nine days in transmitting the notice of the court’s action on Kangas’s application for state habeas relief, in combination with Kangas waiting until only three days remained in the statutory period to file his state writ application, does not constitute a “rare and exceptional circumstance” warranting equitable tolling. See Ott v. Johnson, 192 F.3d 510, 514 (5th Cir.1999). Therefore, the judgment of the district court dismissing Kan-gas’s § 2254 application is AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.