Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 565.0

529US2

Unit: $U50

[09-26-01 10:29:49] PAGES PGT: OPIN

490

SLACK v. McDANIEL

Opinion of Scalia, J.

remand. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed,
and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent
with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Souter and
Justice Breyer join, concurring in part and concurring
in the judgment.

With respect to the issue resolved in Part II of the Court’s
opinion, I agree with the Courts of Appeals that have held
that the pre-AEDPA version of 28 U. S. C. § 2253 governs
the right to appeal with respect to an appeal noticed after
the effective date of AEDPA in a habeas corpus proceeding
commenced prior to that date. See Fuller v. Roe, 182 F. 3d
699, 702 (CA9 1999) (per curiam); Crowell v. Walsh, 151
F. 3d 1050, 1051–1052 (CADC 1998); Tejeda v. Dubois, 142
F. 3d 18, 22, n. 4 (CA1 1998); Berrios v. United States, 126
F. 3d 430, 431, n. 2 (CA2 1997); United States v. Kunzman,
125 F. 3d 1363, 1364, n. 2 (CA10 1997); United States v. Skan-
dier, 125 F. 3d 178, 179–182 (CA3 1997); Hardwick v. Single-
tary, 122 F. 3d 935, 936 (per curiam), vacated in part on
other grounds, 126 F. 3d 1312 (CA11 1997) (per curiam);
Arredondo v. United States, 120 F. 3d 639, 640 (CA6 1997);
United States v. Carter, 117 F. 3d 262, 264 (CA5 1997) (per
curiam); but see Tiedeman v. Benson, 122 F. 3d 518, 520–521
(CA8 1997).

I do, however, join the balance of the Court’s opinion and

its judgment.

Justice Scalia, with whom Justice Thomas joins,

concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I join the opinion of the Court, except for its discussion
in Parts III and IV of whether Slack’s postexhaustion peti-
tion was second or successive.
I believe that the Court pro-
duces here, as it produced in a different respect in Stewart
v. Martinez-Villareal, 523 U. S. 637 (1998), see id., at 646