Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Bullard v. Barker, 99-7219 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 99-7219 Visitors: 16
Filed: Jul. 03, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7219 VONNIE RAY BULLARD, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WILLIAM R. BARKER, Superintendent, Sampson County Prison Unit, Clinton, NC; MICHAEL EASLEY, Attorney General of North Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-96-370-5-BO) Submitted: June 21, 2001 Decided: July 3, 2001 Before WID
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7219 VONNIE RAY BULLARD, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WILLIAM R. BARKER, Superintendent, Sampson County Prison Unit, Clinton, NC; MICHAEL EASLEY, Attorney General of North Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-96-370-5-BO) Submitted: June 21, 2001 Decided: July 3, 2001 Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Susan Hubbard Pollitt, NORTH CAROLINA PRISONER LEGAL SERVICES, INC., Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Vonnie Ray Bullard 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. We therefore deny a certif- icate of probable cause and dismiss in part, and affirm in part on the reasoning of the district court. See Bullard v. Barker, No. CA-96-370-5-BO (E.D.N.C. Aug. 2, 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. AFFIRMED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART 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