United States v. Manthei

               IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT



                           No. 98-10192
                         Summary Calendar



                     UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                         Plaintiff-Appellee,

                              versus

                     RAMONA JOHNSTON MANTHEI,

                                         Defendant-Appellant.

                       - - - - - - - - - -
          Appeal from the United States District Court
               for the Northern District of Texas
                       UDC No. 97-CV-858-E
                       - - - - - - - - - -
                         October 30, 1998

Before DAVIS, DUHÉ, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:1

     On November 15, 1989, Ramona Johnston Manthei (Manthei),

federal prisoner #18595-077, pleaded guilty to distribution of

amphetamine.    On October 9, 1997 she filed a habeas petition

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.     The Government filed a motion to

dismiss, contending that the petition was time-barred by the 1996

Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) of 1996

(codified at 28 U.S.C. § 2255).   The AEDPA sets a one-year statute

of limitations for federal habeas petitions.


     1
        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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
     The district court granted the Government’s motion to dismiss.

Manthei then filed a certificate of appealability, which the

district court granted with respect to the application of the AEDPA

statute of limitations to Manthei’s § 2255 petition.            On appeal

Manthei argues that the AEDPA was not enacted until after her

conviction and sentence, and its limitation provision should not be

retroactively applied.     In the alternative she requests equitable

tolling of the statute of limitations.

     We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties and

conclude   that   the   district   court   was   correct   in   dismissing

Manthei’s petition because it was time-barred under the AEDPA. See

United States v. Flores, 135 F.3d 1000, 1005 (5th Cir. 1998).

Moreover, even assuming arguendo that equitable tolling does apply

to the statute of limitations for § 2255 motions, Manthei’s reasons

for delay do not rise to a level warranting equitable tolling.

     AFFIRMED.