Case Name: Antwan Dominic CAMPBELL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Page TRUE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-08-29
Citations: 17 F. App'x 177
Docket Number: No. 01-6484
Parties: Antwan Dominic CAMPBELL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Page TRUE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 17
Pages: 177–178

Head Matter:
Antwan Dominic CAMPBELL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Page TRUE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 01-6484.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 23, 2001.
Decided Aug. 29, 2001.
David Bernard Hargett, Hargett & Watson, P.L.C., Richmond, VA, for appellant. Mark L. Earley, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, VA, for appellee.
Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Antwan Dominic Campbell seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Campbell argued on appeal that the district court erred in calculating the one year filing period by failing to consider the date on which the Supreme Court of Virginia denied direct review of the appeal in determining the date the conviction became final, and in failing to consider the date Campbell placed his state habeas petition in the mail system as the date of filing.
After carefully reviewing the record, and as admitted by Campbell's counsel, we conclude that giving Campbell the benefits of the time periods sought, his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 petition was approximately two months late. Campbell states in his informal brief that equitable tolling may apply to his case, but does not identify any factors that would support application of equitable tolling, and the record reveals none.
Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of ap-pealability, and dismiss the appeal substantially on the reasoning of the district court. See Campbell v. True, No. CA-00-1518-AM (E.D. Va. filed Mar. 2, 2001; entered Mar. 6, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.