Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Banshee v. Gunn, 02-6414 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-6414 Visitors: 5
Filed: May 28, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6414 MANSA MUSA BANSHEE, formerly known as Stanley Rembert Butler, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WILLIAM E. GUNN; CHARLES M. CONDON, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-01-2349-6-10) Submitted: May 16, 2002 Decided: May 28, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed b
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6414 MANSA MUSA BANSHEE, formerly known as Stanley Rembert Butler, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WILLIAM E. GUNN; CHARLES M. CONDON, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-01-2349-6-10) Submitted: May 16, 2002 Decided: May 28, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mansa Musa Banshee, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Mansa Musa Banshee appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2001). The district court granted Banshee’s motion for a certificate of appealability. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Banshee v. Gunn, No. CA-01-2349-6-10 (D.S.C. Feb. 21, 2002). 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 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