Young v. Angelone , 2 F. App'x 240 ( 2001 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-6715
ANDREA MILLISCENT YOUNG,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia
Department of Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-99-1400-2)
Submitted: October 31, 2000 Decided: January 18, 2001
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Andrea Milliscent Young, Appellant Pro Se. Linwood Theodore Wells,
Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Andrea Milliscent Young seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on her petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254(West 1994 & Supp. 2000). Young’s petition is barred by the one-
year statute of limitations. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 2244(d) (West 1994
& Supp. 2000). Young’s conviction became final in 1995, but she
did not file her § 2254 petition in the district court until De-
cember 1998, long after the limitations period expired. Harris v.
Hutchinson, 209 F.3d 325, 327 (4th Cir. 2000) (rejecting habeas
petitioner’s argument that limitations period did not begin until
termination of state post-conviction proceedings, and holding that
period instead commences “upon conclusion of direct review of a
judgment of conviction”); see Hernandez v. Caldwell, 225 F.3d 435,
439 (4th Cir. 2000) (establishing April 24, 1997, as the cut-off
date for petitioners to seek habeas relief from state convictions
that had become final prior to the April 24, 1996 effective date of
the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996).
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dis-
miss the appeal. 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
2