Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Dimond v. State of SC, 96-7394 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-7394 Visitors: 16
Filed: Jan. 06, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7394 JO ANN DIMOND, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; CHARLES M. CONDON, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (CA-95-3678-2-23AJ) Submitted: December 19, 1996 Decided: January 6, 1997 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNE
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7394 JO ANN DIMOND, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; CHARLES M. CONDON, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (CA-95-3678-2-23AJ) Submitted: December 19, 1996 Decided: January 6, 1997 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jo Ann Dimond, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 orders denying relief on her petition filed under 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214, and denying her motion for reconsider- ation. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Additionally, we have determined that the dis- trict court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant's motion for reconsideration. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Dimond v. South Carolina, No. CA-95-3678-2-23AJ (D.S.C. July 19, 1996; Aug. 13, 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