Filed: May 14, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: Opinion withdrawn by court order filed 5/14/02; another opinion will issue at later date UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-8108 JOHN MOCK, a/k/a Eric Washington, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CA-01-786-5) Submitted: March 12, 2002 Decided: May 9, 2002 Before WILKINS, WIL
Summary: Opinion withdrawn by court order filed 5/14/02; another opinion will issue at later date UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-8108 JOHN MOCK, a/k/a Eric Washington, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CA-01-786-5) Submitted: March 12, 2002 Decided: May 9, 2002 Before WILKINS, WILL..
More
Opinion withdrawn by court order filed 5/14/02; another opinion will issue at later date UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-8108 JOHN MOCK, a/k/a Eric Washington, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CA-01-786-5) Submitted: March 12, 2002 Decided: May 9, 2002 Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Mock, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: John Mock appeals from the district court’s order dismissing sua sponte his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2001) petition as untimely. 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 reasoning of the district court. See Mock v. North Carolina, No. CA-01-786-5 (E.D.N.C. Nov. 1, 2001). 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 3
