Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Short v. State of SC, 19-4525 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 19-4525 Visitors: 32
Filed: Oct. 21, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7162 JESSE LAMONT SHORT, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; MICHAEL MOORE, Com- missioner of the South Department of Correc- tions; CHARLES MOLONY CONDON, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-97-1847-3-18BC) Submitted: September 30, 1998
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7162 JESSE LAMONT SHORT, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; MICHAEL MOORE, Com- missioner of the South Department of Correc- tions; CHARLES MOLONY CONDON, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-97-1847-3-18BC) Submitted: September 30, 1998 Decided: October 21, 1998 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jesse Lamont Short, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). 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. Short v. South Carolina, No. CA-97-1847-3-18BC (D.S.C. July 13, 1998). 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 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