CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT |
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
TRAVIS LESTER,
Defendant-Appellant. |
Nos. 22-6076/6077 |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee at Memphis.
No. 2:21-cr-20152-1—Samuel H. Mays, Jr., District Judge.
Decided and Filed: April 16, 2024
Before: GIBBONS, WHITE, and THAPAR, Circuit Judges.
_________________________
OPINION
_________________________
THAPAR, Circuit Judge. Travis Lester was convicted of possessing a firearm as a felon.
On appeal, Lester claims that Miranda and Fourth Amendment violations, evidentiary errors, and
sentencing mistakes entitle him to a do-over. We disagree and affirm. |
CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT |
CARL HUBBARD,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
RANDEE REWERTS, Warden,
Respondent-Appellee. |
No. 21-2968 |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.
No. 2:13-cv-14540—David M. Lawson, District Judge.
Argued: July 19, 2023
Decided and Filed: April 16, 2024
Before: BATCHELDER, COLE, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges.
_________________________
OPINION
_________________________
ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge. Petitioner Carl Hubbard was convicted of
first-degree murder in Michigan state court on September 2, 1992. Over two decades later (and
long after 28 U.S.C. § 2244’s one-year limitation period had expired), Hubbard filed a petition
for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan. The district court dismissed the petition as untimely. Hubbard now appeals, arguing
that he is entitled to an equitable exception to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act
of 1996’s (AEDPA) time bar based on a credible showing of actual innocence. See McQuiggin
v. Perkins, 569 U.S. 383, 386 (2013). While Hubbard presents new evidence that impeaches the
State’s case against him, he fails to present evidence affirmatively demonstrating his actual
innocence; he cannot prove that he did not, in fact, commit murder. Accordingly, AEDPA does
not permit him to file an untimely habeas petition. We affirm. |
|