Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Bryant v. Bumgarner, 00-7390 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-7390 Visitors: 55
Filed: Mar. 19, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7390 KENNETH EARL BRYANT, Petitioner - Appellant, versus MIKE BUMGARNER, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CA-00-79-5-BR) Submitted: February 28, 2001 Decided: March 19, 2001 Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7390 KENNETH EARL BRYANT, Petitioner - Appellant, versus MIKE BUMGARNER, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CA-00-79-5-BR) Submitted: February 28, 2001 Decided: March 19, 2001 Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard Brooks Glazier, BEAVER, HOLT, RICHARDSON, STERNLICHT, BURGE & GLAZIER, P.A., Fayetteville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Kenneth Earl Bryant 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. Bryant v. Bumgarner, No. CA-00-79-5- BR (E.D.N.C. Sept. 11, 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