Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Baker v. State of SC, 00-7394 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-7394 Visitors: 30
Filed: Feb. 28, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7394 DONALD M. BAKER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; CHARLES M. CONDON, Attorney General for the State of South Caro- lina; GERALDINE P. MIRO, Warden; ALLENDALE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CA-99-3392-4-24) Submitted: February 22, 2001 Decided: Feb
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7394 DONALD M. BAKER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; CHARLES M. CONDON, Attorney General for the State of South Caro- lina; GERALDINE P. MIRO, Warden; ALLENDALE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CA-99-3392-4-24) Submitted: February 22, 2001 Decided: February 28, 2001 Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Donald M. Baker, Appellant Pro Se. Derrick K. McFarland, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Donald M. Baker seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 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 magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certif- icate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Baker v. South Carolina, No. CA-99-3392-4-24 (D.S.C. filed Sept. 22, 2000; entered Sept. 25, 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
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