Filed: Oct. 24, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6685 PEDRO GARCIA QUINTERO, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RANDALL E. LEE, Respondent - Appellee.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-96-984-5-H) Submitted: October 10, 1997 Decided: October 24, 1997 Before HALL, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Pedro Garcia Quintero, Appell
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6685 PEDRO GARCIA QUINTERO, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RANDALL E. LEE, Respondent - Appellee.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-96-984-5-H) Submitted: October 10, 1997 Decided: October 24, 1997 Before HALL, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Pedro Garcia Quintero, Appella..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6685 PEDRO GARCIA QUINTERO, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RANDALL E. LEE, Respondent - Appellee.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-96-984-5-H) Submitted: October 10, 1997 Decided: October 24, 1997 Before HALL, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Pedro Garcia Quintero, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 appeals a district court order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. ยง 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). 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 certificate of appeal- ability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court.* Quintero v. Lee, No. CA-96-984-5-H (E.D.N.C. May 1, 1997). We also deny Appellant's motion for a certificate of probable cause. 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 * We note that in adopting the magistrate judge's memorandum and recommendation in total, the petition was dismissed without prejudice. 2