Richard v. Kaylo

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 19 2002
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge
Clerk
No. 02-30070
Summary Calendar
RYAN RICHARD,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
BARON KAYLO, Warden,
Respondent-Appellee.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 01-CV-2294-H
- - - - - - - - - -
Before DeMOSS, PARKER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Ryan Richard, Louisiana prisoner # 353246, appeals the
district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for
habeas relief. Richard argues that 1) his guilty plea was not
knowingly and intelligently made because the trial court failed
to inform him of the nature of, and elements comprising, the
manslaughter offense, and 2) he received ineffective assistance
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-30070
-2-
of counsel because his attorney failed to advise him of the
nature and elements of manslaughter.
Richard has filed a letter with this court, which we
construe as a motion seeking reconsideration of the clerk’s
office’s determination that Richard’s reply brief was untimely
filed. Because the Appellee has not filed a response opposing
Richard’s request, and in the interest of affording Richard every
advantage in this pro se appeal, his motion is GRANTED.
We have reviewed the record and the briefs submitted by the
parties and hold that Richard fails to meet his burden of
establishing that the state court’s adjudication of his claims
resulted in a decision that was contrary to Federal law, or was
based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of
the evidence presented in the state court proceedings. See 28
U.S.C. § 2254(d); Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 244 (1969);
Henderson v. Morgan, 426 U.S. 637, 646-47 (1976); Strickland v.
Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984); Bonvillain v. Blackburn,
780 F.2d 1248, 1251 (5th Cir. 1986). Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.