Court Opinion

ID: 1002085
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 18:05:44.417797+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:35:21.359421
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

JOHN H. WRIGHT,
Petitioner-Appellant,

v.
                                                                      No. 99-6991
WARDEN, POWHATAN CORRECTIONAL
CENTER,
Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge.
(CA-99-926-AM)

Submitted: January 18, 2000

Decided: July 25, 2000

Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges,
and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

John H. Wright, Appellant Pro Se.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

John Henry Wright, a Virginia prisoner, seeks to appeal the district
court's order denying as successive his habeas corpus petition chal-
lenging his 1981 convictions for murder, malicious wounding, and
use of a firearm in the commission of a felony. On appeal, Wright
contends that the prior habeas corpus petition on which the district
court relied was a challenge to a 1968 conviction, rather than to the
1981 conviction he now attacks. See Wright v. Murray, No. CA-93-
1068-AM (E.D. Va. June 23, 1994), aff'd, No. 94-6841 (4th Cir. Oct.
27, 1994) (unpublished).

Even if we were to consider the prior petition as a challenge to
Wright's 1968 conviction, dismissal of the present petition was
proper, albeit for a different reason than that cited by the district
court. Specifically, Wright's present petition was filed in July 1999,
more than two years after the statutory limitations period expired for
convictions that became final prior to the enactment of the Antiterro-
rism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. See 28 U.S.C.A.
§ 2244(d) (West Supp. 1999); Brown v. Angelone, 150 F.3d 370, 374-
76 (4th Cir. 1998). Accordingly, Wright's petition was untimely.

We deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argu-
ment would not significantly aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

                    2