Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Suggs v. Condon, 00-7233 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-7233 Visitors: 55
Filed: Nov. 02, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7233 RONNIE D. SUGGS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus CHARLES M. CONDON, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CA-00-1041-2-19) Submitted: October 26, 2000 Decided: November 2, 2000 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per cu
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7233 RONNIE D. SUGGS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus CHARLES M. CONDON, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CA-00-1041-2-19) Submitted: October 26, 2000 Decided: November 2, 2000 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronnie D. Suggs, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, William Edgar Salter, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Ronnie D. Suggs appeals the district court’s order denying his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000), as untimely filed. We have reviewed the record, the district court’s opinion accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation, and Suggs’ informal brief. Because Suggs failed to challenge on appeal the basis for the district court’s ruling, he has not pre- served any issue for our review. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Accord- ingly, we deny Suggs’ motion for appointment of counsel, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal on the rea- soning of the district court. See Suggs v. Condon, No. CA-00-1041- 2-19 (D.S.C. Aug. 8, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma- terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer