Filed: Feb. 05, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7064 MICHAEL ANTHONY BROWN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DANIEL L. STIENEKE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CA-98-364-5-BR2) Submitted: January 21, 1999 Decided: February 5, 1999 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Anthony Br
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7064 MICHAEL ANTHONY BROWN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DANIEL L. STIENEKE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CA-98-364-5-BR2) Submitted: January 21, 1999 Decided: February 5, 1999 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Anthony Bro..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7064 MICHAEL ANTHONY BROWN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DANIEL L. STIENEKE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CA-98-364-5-BR2) Submitted: January 21, 1999 Decided: February 5, 1999 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Anthony Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Michael Anthony Brown 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 dis- trict court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Brown’s motion for appointment of counsel, deny a certif- icate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Brown v. Stieneke, No. CA-98-364-5-BR2 (E.D.N.C. June 23, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma- terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2
