Filed: Feb. 01, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7387 EUGENIO DUQUESNE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus W. K. JONES; STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, on relation of James E. Long, Commissioner of Insurance of North Carolina, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District Judge. (CA-95-584-5-BR) Submitted: January 18, 1996 Decided: February 1, 1996 Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circui
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7387 EUGENIO DUQUESNE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus W. K. JONES; STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, on relation of James E. Long, Commissioner of Insurance of North Carolina, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District Judge. (CA-95-584-5-BR) Submitted: January 18, 1996 Decided: February 1, 1996 Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7387 EUGENIO DUQUESNE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus W. K. JONES; STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, on relation of James E. Long, Commissioner of Insurance of North Carolina, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District Judge. (CA-95-584-5-BR) Submitted: January 18, 1996 Decided: February 1, 1996 Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eugenio Duquesne, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 ap- peal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Duquesne v. Jones, No. CA-95-584-5-BR (E.D.N.C. July 28, 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
