Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Vogeney v. Crews, 96-6469 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-6469 Visitors: 29
Filed: Aug. 20, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6469 RICHARD A. VOGENEY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus ZEB CREWS; STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Bryson City. Graham C. Mullen, Dis- trict Judge. (CA-95-204-2-MU) Submitted: August 15, 1996 Decided: August 20, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and ERVIN, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpubl
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6469 RICHARD A. VOGENEY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus ZEB CREWS; STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Bryson City. Graham C. Mullen, Dis- trict Judge. (CA-95-204-2-MU) Submitted: August 15, 1996 Decided: August 20, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and ERVIN, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard A. Vogeney, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 reconsideration of the court's prior order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 petition, which the court properly construed as an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal; to the extent that a cer- tificate of appealability is required, we deny such a certificate. We dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Vogeney v. Crews, No. CA-95-204-2-MU (W.D.N.C. Mar. 11, 1996). 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