Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Amos Lee Vaughan v. Ernest R. Sutton, 90-6199 (1991)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 90-6199 Visitors: 10
Filed: Feb. 27, 1991
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 927 F.2d 598 Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Amos Lee VAUGHAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ernest R. SUTTON, Respondent-Appellee. No. 90-6199. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted Feb. 4, 1991. Decided Feb. 27, 1991. Appeal from the
More

927 F.2d 598
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Amos Lee VAUGHAN, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Ernest R. SUTTON, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 90-6199.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 4, 1991.
Decided Feb. 27, 1991.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Franklin T. Dupree, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-90-148-HC)

Amos Lee Vaughan, appellant pro se.

Clarence Joe DelForge, III, Office of the Attorney General of North Carolina, Raleigh, N.C., for appellee.

E.D.N.C.

DISMISSED.

Before DONALD RUSSELL, SPROUSE and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Amos Lee Vaughan appeals from the district court's order refusing habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Vaughan v. Sutton, CA-90-148-HC (E.D.N.C. Nov. 27, 1990). 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.

2

DISMISSED.

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