Filed: Mar. 19, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7654 PAUL MITCHELL BURGESS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; WALTER WHITMAN, Superintendent of Adult Correctional Institu- tion; FRANKLIN FREEMAN, Secretary of the De- partment of Corrections for the State of North Carolina; SUPERINTENDENT CLARK, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief Dis
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7654 PAUL MITCHELL BURGESS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; WALTER WHITMAN, Superintendent of Adult Correctional Institu- tion; FRANKLIN FREEMAN, Secretary of the De- partment of Corrections for the State of North Carolina; SUPERINTENDENT CLARK, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief Dist..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7654 PAUL MITCHELL BURGESS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; WALTER WHITMAN, Superintendent of Adult Correctional Institu- tion; FRANKLIN FREEMAN, Secretary of the De- partment of Corrections for the State of North Carolina; SUPERINTENDENT CLARK, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-95-283-3-MU-2) Submitted: March 6, 2001 Decided: March 19, 2001 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Paul Mitchell Burgess, Appellant Pro Se. Jill Ledford Cheek, Special Deputy Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Paul Mitchell Burgess appeals 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 Burgess v. North Carolina, No. CA-95-283-3-MU-2 (W.D.N.C. Sept. 28, 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