Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Cannon v. State of NC, 96-7116 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-7116 Visitors: 17
Filed: Apr. 02, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7116 HAYWOOD ALLEN CANNON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-95-675-5-H) Submitted: March 27, 1997 Decided: April 2, 1997 Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Haywood Allen Cannon
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7116 HAYWOOD ALLEN CANNON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-95-675-5-H) Submitted: March 27, 1997 Decided: April 2, 1997 Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Haywood Allen Cannon, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 orders denying relief on his 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 his motion for reconsid- eration. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opin- ion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appeal- ability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Cannon v. North Carolina, No. CA-95-675-5-H (E.D.N.C. July 8, 1996 and May 14, 1996). We deny Appellant's motions for an order enjoining state court Judge Duke from presiding over any cases filed by Appellant and for copies of law clerks' memoranda to the court concerning this appeal and Appellant's prior appeals. We also deny Appellant's motions for appointment of counsel and for 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