Filed: Feb. 15, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7795 PATRICIA ANN WILLIAMS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WARDEN, WOMEN’S CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION; CHARLES M. CONDON, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (CA-00-3163-3-23) Submitted: February 8, 2001 Decided: February 15, 2001 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and T
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7795 PATRICIA ANN WILLIAMS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WARDEN, WOMEN’S CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION; CHARLES M. CONDON, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (CA-00-3163-3-23) Submitted: February 8, 2001 Decided: February 15, 2001 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TR..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7795 PATRICIA ANN WILLIAMS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WARDEN, WOMEN’S CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION; CHARLES M. CONDON, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (CA-00-3163-3-23) Submitted: February 8, 2001 Decided: February 15, 2001 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Patricia Ann Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Patricia Ann Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on her petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the mag- istrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the rea- soning of the district court. Williams v. Warden, Women’s Correc- tional Institution, No. CA-00-3163-3-23 (D.S.C. filed Nov. 20, 2000; entered Nov. 21, 2000). 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