Meyer vs. Dretke, (5th Cir. 2004)

Docket Number: 03-11195

Linked as:

Text

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED July 14, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-11195 Summary Calendar CHARLES ALLEN MEYER, 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 Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:02-CV-552-A Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Charles Allen Meyer, Texas prisoner number 875969, appeals the district court§ 2254 application.

A certificate of appealability was granted as to the issue whether the district court erred in rejecting Meyer§ 2254(d).

Meyer contends that the decision of the state appellate court affirming his convictions was contrary to established Supreme Court precedent in Moore v. Arizona , 414 U.S. 25 (1973) and Doggett v. United States , 505 U.S. 647 (1992), as it required him to make an affirmative showing of prejudice. Meyer contends that, under Moore and Doggett , prejudice must be presumed.

The state appellate court properly balanced the four factors delineated in Barker v. Wingo , 407 U.S. 514, 530 (1972). The state courtÂ’s decision does not indicate that the court considered this to be a case in which the first three factors weighed so heavily in MeyerÂ’s favor that a showing of prejudice was unnecessary. Doggett , 505 U.S. at 655-56. Meyer has not shown that the decision of the state appellate court was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, the above cases.

See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); Williams v. Taylor , 529 U.S. 362, 405-06, 409 (2000). AFFIRMED.

No. 03-11195