UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-6484
ANTWAN DOMINIC CAMPBELL,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
PAGE TRUE, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
Judge. (CA-00-1518-AM)
Submitted: August 23, 2001 Decided: August 29, 2001
Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David Bernard Hargett, HARGETT & WATSON, P.L.C., Richmond, Vir-
ginia, for Appellant. Mark L. Earley, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Antwan Dominic Campbell seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254
(West 1994 & Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record and the
district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Campbell
argued on appeal that the district court erred in calculating the
one year filing period by failing to consider the date on which the
Supreme Court of Virginia denied direct review of the appeal in
determining the date the conviction became final, and in failing to
consider the date Campbell placed his state habeas petition in the
mail system as the date of filing.
After carefully reviewing the record, and as admitted by
Campbell’s counsel, we conclude that giving Campbell the benefits
of the time periods sought, his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 petition was
approximately two months late. Campbell states in his informal
brief that equitable tolling may apply to his case, but does not
identify any factors that would support application of equitable
tolling, and the record reveals none.
Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny
a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal substan-
tially on the reasoning of the district court. See Campbell v.
True, No. CA-00-1518-AM (E.D. Va. filed Mar. 2, 2001; entered Mar.
6, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
2
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3