DocketNumber: 99-30893
Filed Date: 4/16/2001
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 12/21/2014
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 99-30893 Summary Calendar JERRY CHAPMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, versus BURL CAIN, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, Respondent-Appellee. -------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 99-CV-733-J -------------------- April 12, 2001 Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Jerry Chapman, Louisiana prisoner # 91526, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his28 U.S.C. § 2254
application for a writ of habeas corpus as barred by the one-year statute of limitations set forth in28 U.S.C. § 2244
(d), as amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). Chapman contends that the AEDPA’s limitations period should have been tolled during the time his properly filed application for state post-conviction review was pending in state court. * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 99-30893 -2- Chapman’s federal habeas application is untimely even if the limitations period is tolled pursuant to28 U.S.C. § 2244
(d)(2). Chapman’s brief may also be liberally construed as raising an argument that the AEDPA’s limitations period impermissibly interferes with the limitations period for the filing of state habeas applications. That argument is without merit. See Villegas v. Johnson,184 F.3d 467
, 469-73 (5th Cir. 1999); Graham v. Johnson,168 F.3d 762
, 775-80 (5th Cir. 1999), cert. denied,529 U.S. 1097
(2000). Finally, Chapman argues that the prosecution withheld evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland,373 U.S. 83
, 86 (1963); the prosecution knowingly allowed its key witness to commit perjury; and he was denied a fair trial. This court does not have jurisdiction to review those claims because Chapman did not obtain a Certificate of Appealability as to those issues. See Lackey v. Johnson,116 F.3d 149
, 151-52 (5th Cir. 1997). AFFIRMED.