Filed: Jan. 07, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7269 GARY WOOD HEDGEPETH, Petitioner - Appellant, versus TOM C. MARTIN, Respondent - Appellee, and FRANKLIN FREEMAN, Respondent. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-97-183-5-BO) Submitted: December 18, 1997 Decided: January 7, 1998 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished pe
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7269 GARY WOOD HEDGEPETH, Petitioner - Appellant, versus TOM C. MARTIN, Respondent - Appellee, and FRANKLIN FREEMAN, Respondent. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-97-183-5-BO) Submitted: December 18, 1997 Decided: January 7, 1998 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7269 GARY WOOD HEDGEPETH, Petitioner - Appellant, versus TOM C. MARTIN, Respondent - Appellee, and FRANKLIN FREEMAN, Respondent. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-97-183-5-BO) Submitted: December 18, 1997 Decided: January 7, 1998 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gary Wood Hedgepeth, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 the district court's 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 and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the dis- trict court. Hedgepeth v. Martin, No. CA-97-183-5-BO (E.D.N.C. Aug. 12, 1997). We deny Appellant's motion for production of documents. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten- tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2