Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Miller v. State of SC, 95-7307 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-7307 Visitors: 9
Filed: Jan. 17, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 01, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7307 COLLIS MILLER, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CA-92-2063-3-22) Submitted: December 14, 1995 Decided: January 17, 1996 Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judge
More
                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



                            No. 95-7307



COLLIS MILLER, JR.,

                                             Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,

                                            Respondents - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (CA-92-2063-3-22)


Submitted:   December 14, 1995            Decided:   January 17, 1996


Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Collis Miller, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief
Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

     Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

relief on his 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 (1988) petition. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recom-

mendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and
dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Miller
v. South Carolina, No. CA-92-2063-3-22 (D.S.C. July 31, 1995). 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