Court Opinion

ID: 996472
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 00:51:18.673205+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:26:52.164345
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

GREGORY LANGLEY,
Petitioner-Appellant,

v.                                                                    No. 97-7692

A. D. ROBINSON,
Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond.
David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge.
(CA-97-338-R)

Submitted: September 10, 1998

Decided: September 28, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Gregory Langley, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Thomas Judge, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Vir-
ginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Gregory Langley appeals the magistrate judge's order denying
relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &
Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the magistrate judge's
opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certifi-
cate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

In this case, the magistrate judge concluded that Langley's petition
was barred by the one-year limitations period of 28 U.S.C.A.
§ 2244(d)(1) (West Supp. 1998). Langley's conviction became final
on May 9, 1995, and his attempt at state habeas relief was finally
denied on November 20, 1995. The magistrate judge concluded that
this petition, received in the district court on April 17, 1997, was
unreasonably delayed. See Peterson v. Demskie , 107 F.3d 92, 93 (2d
Cir. 1997). The magistrate judge did not have the benefit of our recent
opinion in Brown v. Angelone, ___ F.3d ___, 1998 WL 389030 (4th
Cir. July 14, 1998) (Nos. 96-7173, 96-7208), in which we concluded
that a limitation date of April 23, 1997, provided habeas petitioners
with a reasonable period in which to file new § 2254 petitions. As a
result, Langely's petition should not have been dismissed as time
barred.

Notwithstanding our conclusion that the petition was timely, the
magistrate judge did not commit reversible error in dismissing the
petition. Langley claimed only that his state conviction for abduction,
robbery and use of a firearm in the commission of a felony was not
supported by sufficient evidence. Because this claim was adjudicated
on the merits in the state courts, a federal court may not grant an
application for a writ of habeas corpus unless the decision was con-
trary to, or an unreasonable application of a clearly established
Supreme Court decision, or was based on an unreasonable determina-
tion of the facts. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). Neither the record nor
Langley's petition contain a hint of error of this magnitude on the part
of the state courts. The state court's rejection of Langley's claim that
the victim's positive identification of Appellant as the perpetrator was
insufficient to support his conviction does not amount to an unreason-
able determination of fact or law. Consequently, the appeal of the

                    2
magistrate judge's order dismissing Langley's petition is dismissed on
this reasoning. See Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U.S. 471, 475-76 n.6
(1970). We deny Langley's motion for the appointment of counsel
and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-
tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

                    3