Filed: Sep. 22, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6606 ROBERT LEE DAVIS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus HUBERT STONE, Sheriff, Respondent - Appellee. No. 97-6973 ROBERT LEE DAVIS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus HUBERT STONE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Chief District Judge. (CA-97-155-5-F, CA-97-278-5-HC-F3) Submitted: September 11, 1997 Decided: September 22,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6606 ROBERT LEE DAVIS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus HUBERT STONE, Sheriff, Respondent - Appellee. No. 97-6973 ROBERT LEE DAVIS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus HUBERT STONE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Chief District Judge. (CA-97-155-5-F, CA-97-278-5-HC-F3) Submitted: September 11, 1997 Decided: September 22, 1..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6606 ROBERT LEE DAVIS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus HUBERT STONE, Sheriff, Respondent - Appellee. No. 97-6973 ROBERT LEE DAVIS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus HUBERT STONE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Chief District Judge. (CA-97-155-5-F, CA-97-278-5-HC-F3) Submitted: September 11, 1997 Decided: September 22, 1997 Before RUSSELL, MURNAGHAN, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Lee Davis, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 orders denying relief on his petitions filed under 28 U.S.C.A. ยง 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997) and motion to recuse. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinions and find no reversible error. Ac- cordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeals on the reasoning of the district court. Davis v. Stone, No. CA-97-155-5-F (E.D.N.C. Mar. 24, 1997); Davis v. Stone, No. CA-97-278-5-HC-F3 (E.D.N.C. June 24, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate- ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2