Court Opinion

ID: 24109
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 08:18:07+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:59:53.364066
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                         FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

                        _______________________

                              No. 00-50385
                            Summary Calendar
                     Civil Docket #EP-98-CR-217-H
                        _______________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                      Plaintiff-Appellee,

                                  versus

OLEGARIO SOLIS-GONZALEZ, also known as Rogelio Guerrero,

                                                     Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

           Appeal from the United States District Court
                 for the Western District of Texas
_________________________________________________________________
                            May 9, 2001

Before DAVIS, JONES, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

           Appellant     Olegario     Solis-Gonzalez     was    granted    a

certificate of appealability limited to the issue whether the

district court correctly dismissed his § 2255 petition as time-

barred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1).

           He did not brief this issue until his reply brief.             In

his principal brief, he raises only the merits of his claims.             In

     *
            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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
this court, it is clear that we do not consider issues raised for

the first time in a reply brief.          Stephens v. C.I.T. Group Equip.

Fin., Inc., 955 F.2d 1023, 1026 (5th Cir. 1992).            Accordingly, we

cannot consider the issue.1

            The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

      1
            Even if we were to consider the timeliness of appellant’s petition,
he would have difficulty persuading us that, although he voluntarily dismissed
his appeal, the one-year period should be extended by the time limit for filing
a petition for certiorari. Compare U.S. v. Gamble, 208 F.3d 536, 537 (5th Cir.
2000) (direct appeal dismissed involuntarily).

                                      2