Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Autmus Peeks v. S.R. Witkowski, Warden Charles Molony Condon, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, 96-6836 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-6836 Visitors: 32
Filed: Nov. 19, 1996
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 103 F.3d 119 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Autmus PEEKS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. S.R. WITKOWSKI, Warden; Charles Molony Condon, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees. No. 96-6836. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submit
More

103 F.3d 119

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Autmus PEEKS, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
S.R. WITKOWSKI, Warden; Charles Molony Condon, Attorney
General of the State of South Carolina,
Respondents-Appellees.

No. 96-6836.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 7, 1996.
Decided: Nov. 19, 1996.

Autmus Peeks, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Lauri J. Soles, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

D.S.C.

DISMISSED.

Before RUSSELL and WIDENER, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub.L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. 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 deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Peeks v. Witkowski, No. CA-95-3557-2-11 (D.S.C. Apr. 18, 1996). 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