Moyler v. Greene ( 1999 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-6041
CLARENCE A. MOYLER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
FRED W. GREENE, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (CA-98-234)
Submitted: May 28, 1999 Decided: June 24, 1999
Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Clarence A. Moyler, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Clarence A. Moyler seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing as untimely his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254(West 1994 & Supp. 1999). We have reviewed the record and the
district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. We note
that the earliest date on which we can consider Moyler’s § 2254
petition to have been properly filed is February 2, 1998, the date
he signed it, because that is the earliest date on which he could
have delivered it to prison officials for mailing. See generally
Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988). Nevertheless, it was not
filed within the one-year limitations period prescribed by 28
U.S.C.A. § 2244(d) (West Supp. 1999). Even giving Moyler the
benefit of every doubt after reviewing his often contradictory
pleadings, we conclude that the one-year limitations period expired
no later than October 2, 1997, well before he attempted to file any
challenge to his conviction in federal court. Accordingly, we deny
Moyler’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
appeal substantially on the reasoning of the district court. See
Moyler v. Greene, No. CA-98-234 (E.D. Va. Dec. 7, 1998).* We
*
Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on
December 4, 1998, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on December 7, 1998. Pursuant to
Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is
the date that the judgment or order was entered on the docket sheet
that we take as the effective date of the district court’s
decision. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir.
1986).
2
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
3