Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Spaulding v. Lee, 97-7552 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 97-7552 Visitors: 31
Filed: Mar. 19, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7552 LEVON SPAULDING, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RANDALL LEE, Respondent - Appellee.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-97-279-H) Submitted: February 26, 1998 Decided: March 19, 1998 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Levon Spaulding, Appellant Pro S
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7552 LEVON SPAULDING, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RANDALL LEE, Respondent - Appellee.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-97-279-H) Submitted: February 26, 1998 Decided: March 19, 1998 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Levon Spaulding, Appellant Pro Se. Rebecca Kendrick Cleveland, Assistant Attorney General, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 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 ap- pealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Spaulding v. Lee, No. CA-97-279-H (E.D.N.C. Oct. 20, 1997). We deny Appellant's motions for preparation of a grand jury tran- script at government expense and for general relief 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 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