Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Bromfield v. Freeman, 96-6819 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-6819 Visitors: 17
Filed: Aug. 05, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6819 JOSEPH EDWIN BROMFIELD, Petitioner - Appellant, versus FRANKLIN E. FREEMAN, JR.; TALMADGE L. BARNETT, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (CA-95-553-5-HC-BO) Submitted: March 31, 1997 Decided: August 5, 1997 Before NIEMEYER, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curia
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6819 JOSEPH EDWIN BROMFIELD, Petitioner - Appellant, versus FRANKLIN E. FREEMAN, JR.; TALMADGE L. BARNETT, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (CA-95-553-5-HC-BO) Submitted: March 31, 1997 Decided: August 5, 1997 Before NIEMEYER, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph Edwin Bromfield, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 order 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. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Bromfield v. Freeman, No. CA-95-553-5-HC-BO (E.D.N.C. Apr. 25, 1996). We deny Appellant's motion for appointment of counsel and 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 deci- sional 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