Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Williamson v. State of SC, 95-7704 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-7704 Visitors: 33
Filed: Jul. 18, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7704 ARTHUR EDWARD WILLIAMSON, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA;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 Greenville. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-93-3115-6-8AK) Submitted: March 12, 1996 Decided: July 18, 1996 Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHIL
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7704 ARTHUR EDWARD WILLIAMSON, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA;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 Greenville. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-93-3115-6-8AK) Submitted: March 12, 1996 Decided: July 18, 1996 Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Arthur Edward Williamson, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 habeas corpus petition, 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988), as amended by Act of Apr. 24, 1996, 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254 (Law. Co-op. Advance Sheet June 1996). We have reviewed the record and the dis- trict court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magis- trate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant a certificate of appealability, we affirm the order on the reasoning of the district court. Williamson v. South Carolina, No. CA-93-3115-6-8AK (D.S.C. Sept. 27, 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. AFFIRMED 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