Filed: Nov. 23, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7075 ANTHONY BADU, Petitioner - Appellant, versus MICHAEL T. W. BELL, Superintendent, Wayne Cor- rectional Center, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CA-99-109-5-BR) Submitted: November 18, 1999 Decided: November 23, 1999 Before WILKINS, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpubli
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7075 ANTHONY BADU, Petitioner - Appellant, versus MICHAEL T. W. BELL, Superintendent, Wayne Cor- rectional Center, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CA-99-109-5-BR) Submitted: November 18, 1999 Decided: November 23, 1999 Before WILKINS, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublis..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7075 ANTHONY BADU, Petitioner - Appellant, versus MICHAEL T. W. BELL, Superintendent, Wayne Cor- rectional Center, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CA-99-109-5-BR) Submitted: November 18, 1999 Decided: November 23, 1999 Before WILKINS, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Badu, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Anthony Badu appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1999). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opin- ion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appeal- ability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Badu v. Bell, No. CA-99-109-5-BR (E.D.N.C. July 21, 1999). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2