Thompson v. Cockrell

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
April 22, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-10804
Conference Calendar
JOHN LEE THOMPSON, JR.,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
JANIE COCKRELL, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT
OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,
Respondent-Appellee.
---------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
No. 3:01-CV-1810-H
---------------------
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
John Lee Thompson, Jr., a Texas prisoner (# 766659), appeals
the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas
petition as barred by the one-year limitations provision in 28
U.S.C. § 2244(d). Thompson is serving prison terms of 50 and 60
years for guilty-plea convictions of robbery and aggravated
robbery.
On October 31, 2002, this court granted Thompson a
certificate of appealability (“COA”) on whether he was entitled

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 02-10804
- 2 -
to equitable tolling of the limitations period until the date he
received actual notice of the denial of his state postconviction
application. In his appellate brief, however, Thompson has set
forth neither factual allegations nor legal authorities in
support of an equitable-tolling claim. Issues must be briefed,
even by prisoners proceeding pro se, to be preserved for appeal.
See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993); FED.
R. APP. P. 28(a)(7) and (9) (appellant’s brief must contain a
“statement of facts relevant to the issues . . . with appropriate
references to the record” and “contentions and reasons for them,
with citations to the authorities and parts of the record on
which the appellant relies”). By failing to set forth relevant
factual references or legal citations, Thompson has effectively
abandoned any arguments regarding the dismissal of his habeas
petition as time-barred. See Yohey, 985 F.2d at 224-25.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --