Case ID: f-appx_285/html/0151-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

William Fredrick COLEMAN, Petitioner-Appellant v. Nathaniel QUARTERMAN, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 07-10303
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    July 18, 2008.
    William Fredrick Coleman, Fort Stockton, TX, pro se.
    Marta Rew Mclaughlin, Office of the Attorney General Postconviction Litigation Div., Austin, TX, for Respondenh-Appellee.
    
      Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

William Fredrick Coleman, Texas prisoner # 1175205, appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application for habeas relief, in which Coleman challenged his conviction for aggravated sexual assault of a child. A certificate of appealability (COA) was granted as to whether Coleman’s guilty plea was voluntary. This court also directed the parties to address whether Coleman’s application was time barred.

Coleman devotes his entire appellate brief to the time bar issue and merely concludes in his reply brief that his plea was involuntary and refers this court to arguments he raised in previous district court pleadings. Even if Coleman has not waived review of this issue, see Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.1987), he has failed to demonstrate that his guilty plea was involuntary and that the district court erred in denying him habeas relief based on the merits of this claim.

Resolution of the remaining question specified in the grant of the COA regarding the timeliness of Coleman’s § 2254 application is therefore unnecessary. See Scott v. Johnson, 227 F.3d 260, 262 (5th Cir.2000). The district court’s judgment 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.