Case Name: Douglas THOMPSON, Appellant, v. J. BOOKER, Warden, USP Leavenworth, Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-12-11
Citations: 52 F. App'x 317
Docket Number: No. 02-3199
Parties: Douglas THOMPSON, Appellant, v. J. BOOKER, Warden, USP Leavenworth, Appellee.
Judges: Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, BEAM, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 52
Pages: 317–317

Head Matter:
Douglas THOMPSON, Appellant, v. J. BOOKER, Warden, USP Leavenworth, Appellee.
No. 02-3199.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 2, 2002.
Decided Dec. 11, 2002.
Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, BEAM, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Douglas Thompson appeals the district court's dismissal, as time-barred, of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition challenging one of his state court convictions for murder and the court's refusal to grant a certificate of appealability. For the reasons stated below, we affirm.
"The one-year statute of limitations in § 2244(d)(1) took effect on April 24, 1996.[His] conviction was then final under state law. Therefore, he had one year-until April 24,1997-to file a federal habeas petition, unless the one-year limitation in § 2244(d)(1) was tolled." Gray v. Gammon, 283 F.3d 917, 918 (8th Cir.2002). Thompson's state conviction was final in 1983. See Thompson v. Mo. Bd. of Prob. and Parole, 39 F.3d 186, 188 (8th Cir.1994). Since he filed his current petition on June 7, 1999, and he has not met the requirements for tolling, his current application for writ of habeas corpus is time-barred by section 2244(d)(1).
Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the district court.
. The Honorable Carol E. Jackson, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.
. For a discussion of Thompson's criminal history, see Thompson v. Missouri Board of Probation and Parole, 39 F.3d 186, 187-89 (8th Cir.1994).
. The issues Thompson raised in his application for a certificate of appealability are not the same as the issues he raised in his original petition for writ of habeas corpus; therefore, the denial of his application was appropriate. Abdullah v. United States, 240 F.3d 683, 685 (8th Cir.2001) ("Generally, a habeas claim cannot be raised by a petitioner for the first time on appeal."), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 122 S.Ct. 278, 151 L.Ed.2d 204 (2001).