Chapman v. Cain

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
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 his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application
for a writ of habeas corpus as barred by the one-year statute of
limitations set forth in 28 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.

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 99-30893
-2-
Chapman’s federal habeas application is untimely even if the
limitations period is tolled pursuant to 28 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.

-- 2 of 2 --