Filed: Jan. 25, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7388 VESTER TERRY SNEEDEN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; J. B. FRENCH, Warden, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District Judge. (CA-94-716-5-BR) Submitted: January 16, 1996 Decided: January 25, 1996 Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpub
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7388 VESTER TERRY SNEEDEN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; J. B. FRENCH, Warden, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District Judge. (CA-94-716-5-BR) Submitted: January 16, 1996 Decided: January 25, 1996 Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpubl..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7388 VESTER TERRY SNEEDEN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; J. B. FRENCH, Warden, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District Judge. (CA-94-716-5-BR) Submitted: January 16, 1996 Decided: January 25, 1996 Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Vester Terry Sneeden, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 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 and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal, deny the motion to appoint counsel, and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Sneeden v. North Carolina, No. CA-94-716-5-BR (E.D.N.C. Aug. 7, 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