Walker

Walker v. Roe

Good Law
197 F. App'x 674
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 17, 2006No. 02-16386California225 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

ORDER

We deny petitioner Walker’s motion to withdraw the memorandum disposition filed July 10, 2006. The court’s order in Gaston v. Palmer, 447 F.3d 1165 (9th Cir. 2006), amended its opinion at 417 F.3d 1030 (9th Cir.2005) and is binding on us. See Overstreet v. United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners of Am., Local Union No. 1506, 409 F.3d 1199 , 1205 n. 8 (9th Cir.2005). We also note the mandate has now issued in Gaston,. Walker speculates that further action on Gaston may be taken by the Supreme Court, but we decline to withdraw our disposition on that basis.

We will and hereby do recall the mandate in this case for a different purpose, to amend the memorandum disposition. The memorandum disposition is amended to change the first two sentences of the second paragraph to: ‘Walker challenges his 1998 State of California conviction for first-degree burglary and possession of cocaine, which conviction became final on July 14, 1998. Absent tolling, under 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d)(1)(A) of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), Walker had until July 14,1999, to file his § 2254 petition.”

With these amendments, the mandate shall issue forthwith.

The electronic…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.