Brian Barksdale v. Lorie Davis, Director, No. 16-10813 (5th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 16-10813 Document: 00514505594 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/08/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 16-10813 Summary Calendar FILED June 8, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk BRIAN BARKSDALE, Petitioner-Appellant v. LORIE DAVIS, 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. 3:15-CV-3080 Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and ELROD and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Brian Barksdale, Texas prisoner # 711336, has appealed the district court’s judgment dismissing his application for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the respondent’s denial of street-time-credit upon revocation of his parole in 2014. We previously granted a certificate of appealability with 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. * Case: 16-10813 Document: 00514505594 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/08/2018 No. 16-10813 respect to the question whether the district court erred in determining that Barksdale was not eligible for street-time credit under Texas Government Code § 508.283 because he was a person described in Texas Government Code § 508.149(a)(11). We will defer to the state court’s determination that Barksdale was ineligible for street-time credit as a matter of state law and, therefore, had not been denied a right guaranteed by the United States Constitution. See Charles v. Thaler, 629 F.3d 494, 500-01 (5th Cir. 2011). Barksdale has not shown that the state court’s ruling “was so lacking in justification that there was an error well understood and comprehended in existing law beyond any possibility for fairminded disagreement.” Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 103 (2011). He has not shown that the state-court decision was both incorrect and objectively unreasonable. See Woodford v. Visciotti, 537 U.S. 19, 27 (2002). The judgment is AFFIRMED. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
