Canady v. Dretke

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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
November 6, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-20209
Summary Calendar
WARREN PIERRE CANADY,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
DOUG DRETKE, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF
CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION,
Respondent-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-98-CV-1947
--------------------
Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Warren Pierre Canady, Texas prisoner # 723784, appeals the
district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition in which
he challenged his conviction for theft. As an initial matter,
Canady’s motions to supplement, which request that the record be
supplemented with documents already part of the record on appeal,
are DENIED. His motion to file a supplemental reply brief is
GRANTED.

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 03-20209
-2-
Canady argues that he was denied a speedy trial. Although
the 17-month delay is “presumptively prejudicial,” United States
v. Garcia, 995 F.2d 556, 560 (5th Cir. 1993), and Canady timely
asserted his right to a speedy trial, our review of the record
reveals that Canady failed to satisfy the other factors (reason
for the delay and resulting prejudice) announced in Barker v.
Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 515, 530 (1972). See Nelson v. Hargett, 989
F.2d 847, 852 (5th Cir. 1993); Cowart v. Hargett, 16 F.3d 642,
647 (5th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, the judgment of the district
court is AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --