Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Hernandez v. Caldwell, 01-7293 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-7293 Visitors: 2
Filed: Oct. 16, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7293 PETRA E. HERNANDEZ, Petitioner - Appellant, versus CAROL CALDWELL; MACK JARVIS, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-97-717-5-H) Submitted: August 29, 2002 Decided: October 16, 2002 Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Petra E. Hern
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7293 PETRA E. HERNANDEZ, Petitioner - Appellant, versus CAROL CALDWELL; MACK JARVIS, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-97-717-5-H) Submitted: August 29, 2002 Decided: October 16, 2002 Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Petra E. Hernandez, Appellant Pro Se. 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Petra E. Hernandez seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on her petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and conclude on the reasoning of the district court that Hernandez has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Hernandez v. Caldwell, No. CA-97-717-5-H (E.D.N.C. July 18, 2001). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). We deny Hernandez’s motions for appointment of counsel and formal briefing. 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