Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Moore v. State of NC, 96-6750 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-6750 Visitors: 73
Filed: Aug. 06, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6750 MOYA MOORE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, on relation of James E. Long, Commissioner of Insurance of North Carolina, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Chief District Judge. (CA-95-457-5-HC-F) Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: August 6, 1996 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Ju
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6750 MOYA MOORE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, on relation of James E. Long, Commissioner of Insurance of North Carolina, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Chief District Judge. (CA-95-457-5-HC-F) Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: August 6, 1996 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Moya Moore, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence DelForge, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 petition filed under 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 (1988), as amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1217. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal; to the extent that a certificate of appealability is required, we deny such a certificate. We dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Moore v. State of South Carolina, No. CA-95-457-5-HC-F (E.D.N.C. Apr. 16, 1996). Furthermore, we deny Appellant's motion to appoint counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate- rials 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