Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Green v. State of SC, 96-7018 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-7018 Visitors: 50
Filed: Jan. 13, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7018 TIMOTHY F. GREEN, a/k/a Iyatullah Alnafi Ali, Petitioner - Appellant, versus CHARLES J. CEPAK, Warden; STATE OF SOUTH CARO- LINA; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-95-2980-18BD) Submitted: December 17, 1996 Decided: January 13, 1997 Before MURNAGHAN
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7018 TIMOTHY F. GREEN, a/k/a Iyatullah Alnafi Ali, Petitioner - Appellant, versus CHARLES J. CEPAK, Warden; STATE OF SOUTH CARO- LINA; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-95-2980-18BD) Submitted: December 17, 1996 Decided: January 13, 1997 Before MURNAGHAN and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Timothy F. Green, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 appeals the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 (1994), amended by Anti- terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104- 132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certif- icate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Green v. Cepack, No. CA-95-2980-18BD (D.S.C. June 10, 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