United States v. Raven ( 2003 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT June 24, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-41467
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MICHAEL DWIGHT RAVEN,
also known as Red,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. G-01-CV-779
USDC No. G-95-CR-10-1
--------------------
Before DeMOSS, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Michael Dwight Raven, federal prisoner # 46219079, appeals
the district court’s dismissal as time-barred of his 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 motion challenging his convictions for conspiracy to
possess with intent to distribute cocaine and four counts of
possession with intent to distribute cocaine. Raven argues that
the district court abused its discretion in failing to apply
equitable tolling because his counsel represented to him that
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 02-41467
-2-
his motion would be timely filed but inadvertently miscalculated
the filing deadline.
Raven admits that the error was the result of counsel’s
negligence and was not the result of intentional deceit.
This court has consistently held that a petitioner may not rely
on “mere attorney error or neglect” as a basis for equitable
tolling. See Cousin v. Lensing, 310 F.3d 843, 849 (5th Cir.
2002), cert. denied, __ S. Ct. __, No. 02-9984, 2003 WL 1877686
(U.S. June 9, 2003); United States v. Riggs, 314 F.3d 796, 799
(5th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, __ S. Ct. __, No. 02-10784, 2003
WL 21312719 (U.S. June 23, 2003). Therefore, Raven has not
demonstrated that the district court abused its discretion in
dismissing the motion as time barred.
AFFIRMED.