P u rsuan t t o 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5, t h e courtha s det erm i n ed that th i s opi n i on * shou l d n otbe pu bl i shedan d i s not preceden texcept u n der t h e li m i t ed c i r c um s t anc e s s e tf

o r t h i n 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5. 4. 

### IN THE UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCUIT

N o. 08- 20156 Su m m ar yC al endar ART HU R DOYL E RUT LE DGE , Peti t i o ne r - Appe l l ant
v. RI CK T HALER, DI RE CT O R, TEXAS D EPAR TM EN T O F CR I M I NALJ U STI CE, CO RR EC T I ONA L I NS T I T UT I ONS DIVI S I ON , R espon den t - A pp el l ee A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or th e S ou t h ernD i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 4: 07- C V

- 3160 B ef oreK IN G , ST E W A R T an d H AY N E S , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IAM: * In 198 8, A rth u r D oyl e R u t l edg e, T exas pri soner # 480 310 , w as convi ct ed of m u rd erin g W oo dro w Lew i s by s t abbi ng hi m w i t h a deadly w eapo n and by c ho ki ng hi m . Rut l e dg e w as s e nt e nc e d t o 6 0 ye ar s o f i m pri sonm e nt . Af

t e rt he T exas C ou rtof

C ri m i n alA pp eal s den i ed R u t l edg e’ s s t ate hab eas petit i on c ha l l e ngi ng t he d e ni a l o f p a r o l e , Rut l e d g e f il e d t he i ns t a nt 2 8 U . S. C . § 2254 petit i on t o chal l en ge t h e den i alo f p a ro le in 19 98, 200 0, 200 2, 200 4, an d, m ost United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I LE D September

17, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 20156

2 r e c e n t ly , o nS e p t e mb e r7 , 2 0 0 6 . T h e d i s t r i c tc o u r td i s mi s s e dt h e p e t i t i o n a s t i me b a r r e d . S ee2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 4 (d). T h e insta n t pe titi on , f il edon A u gu st 30 , 20 0 7 , i s n ot ti m e b a rredw i th respectt o R u t l edg e’ s c l ai m t h at hi s c on st i t u t i on a l righ t s w ere vi ol ated w h en p a r o le w a s d e n ie do nS e p te m b e r7 , 2 0 0 6 . SeeG oo dw i n v. D re t ke , 1 5 0 F e d . A p p ’x 2 9 5 , 2 9 9 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). R u tl ed ge arg u es th a t as p a rt of h i s p l ea ag ree m en t, th e s ta te a gr ee dto dr o p the f

i ndi ng t hatheus e d ade ad ly w e ap o n du r i ng t he c o m m i s s i o n o f t he o ffe n s e . H e a r g u e s t h a t th e s ta te b r e a c h e dh is p le aa g r e e m e n t w h e n th e p a r o le b o a r de v a l u a t e da n dd e n i e dh i s r e l e a s e o n t h e b a s i s o f aw e a p o n s f

i n d i n g . He a s s e r ts th a t t h is a c t i o nh a s p o s tp o n e dh is e lig ib ilityd a te fr o m 1 9 9 4 to 1 9 9 8 . R u t l edg e’ s all egati ont h at hi s eli gib il i ty f or parol e w as del ayedbased on a dea dl y w eap onf

i n din gis fa ct u al ly i n corr ect . R u t l edg e becam e eli gibl e f or r e le a s e o np a r o le in 1 9 9 4 , sixy e a r s a fte rh is co n v ic tio n , ju s t a s h e s a y s h e s h o u ld h a v e w ith o u t ad e a d lyw e a p o nfin d in g . N or i s th ere m eritt o R u t l edg e’ s argum en tt h at th e st ate w as proh ibi t ed f r o m u s i n gt h e d e a d lywe ap o n as pe c to f h i s o f fe n s e i n d e n y i n gh i m p a r o l e . By ac c e pt i ng Rut l e dg e ’ s pl e a o f guil t y o f the o f fe ns e c har ge d i n the i ndi c t m e nt , t he s ta te tr ia l c o u r tm a d e afin d in gth a t R u tle d g e u s e dad e a d lyw e a p o n . Se eEx pa rt e E mpey, 75 7 S . W . 2d77 1 , 77 4 (T ex . C ri m . A p p . 19 8 8 ). H ow ev er, th e sta te tr ia l co u r t d idn o t e x e r c is e its d i s c r e t i o n to e n te ra n a ffir m a tiv e fin d in g , a s is n e c e s s a r yto tr ig g e rth e p r o v is io n d e la y in gp a r o le e lig ib ility . S eeExp a rte B rooks, 7 2 2 S .W . 2 d1 4 0 , 1 4 2 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 1 9 8 6 ) (e n b a n c); Joh n son v. S t ate, 2 3 3 S .W . 3 d4 2 0 , 4 2 4 -2 5 (T e x . A p p . 2 0 0 7 ). So e ve n if heha d apl e a agr e e m e nt p r e c lu d in gt h e e n tr yo f a na ffir m a tiv e d e a d lyw e a p o n fin d in g , s e eJo hns o n, 233 S . W . 3 d at 427 , t h e accept an ce of hi s pl ea w ou l d st il lam ou n tt o an un en t ered fin d in go f u s e o f ad e a d lyw e a p o n . S ee Ex pa rt e E mpey, 7 5 7 S . W . 2 d at774. C on t rary t o t h e i m pl i cat i on i n R u t l edg e’ s argu m en t , t h e l ack of a dea dl y w eap on f i n di n g ont h e j u dg m en tdoes not am ou n tt o a f in d ing that he did not use one.N o. 08- 20156

3 Se ei d. M o r e o v e r , R u tle d g e d o e s n o t in d ic a te h o w h i s p le aa g r e e m e n t w o u ld p r e c lu d e th e T e x a s B o a r do f P a r d o n s a n dP a r o le fr o m lo o k in ga t t h e fa c ts o f h is o ffe n s e e v e ninth e a b s e n c e o f th e e n tr yo f ad e a d lyw e a p o n fin d in g . Si nc e Rut l e dg e ha s no t s ho w n a br e ac h o f t he all e ge d pl e a agr e e m e nt , he i s es se nt i al ly c hal l engi ng Texas ’ s par ol e r evi ew pr oc edur es . B eca u seTexas pri soners ha ve n o const i t u t i on al ly protec t ed l ibert y i n t eresti n rel ease on p arol e, A l l i son v. K

yle, 6 6 F .3 d7 1 , 7 4 ( 5 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ), R u tle d g e ca n n o t c h a lle n g e p a r o le r e v ie w p r o c e d u r e s o np r o c e d u r a l o rs u b s ta n ti v e d u e p r o c e s s g r o u n d s , Joh n son v. R od rigu ez , 1 1 0 F .3 d2 9 9 , 3 0 8 (5 t h C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). A c c o r d in g ly , t h e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s d e n i a lo f

R u t l e d g e ’ s § 2 2 5 4 p e t i t i o n i s A F F I RMED. Ru t l e d g e ’ s mo t i o nt o f il e as u p p l e me n t a lr e p lyb r i e f i s GRANT ED . R ut l ed ge ’ s pl eadi ng ent i t l ed m ot i on f ors um m ar y j udgm enti s ac t ual ly a s u p p le m e n ta l b r ie f a n dre q u ir e s n o a d d itio n a l ru lin gfr o m th is co u r t.