Filed: Mar. 16, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6037 RANDALL SALTERS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus MARK HUGHES; MICHAEL F. EASLEY, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-00-170-MU-1) Submitted: March 8, 2001 Decided: March 16, 2001 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Randall Salte
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6037 RANDALL SALTERS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus MARK HUGHES; MICHAEL F. EASLEY, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-00-170-MU-1) Submitted: March 8, 2001 Decided: March 16, 2001 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Randall Salter..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6037 RANDALL SALTERS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus MARK HUGHES; MICHAEL F. EASLEY, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-00-170-MU-1) Submitted: March 8, 2001 Decided: March 16, 2001 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Randall Salters, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Randall Salters 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 and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the rea- soning of the district court. See Salters v. Hughes, No. CA-00- 170-MU-1 (W.D.N.C. Dec. 8, 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