Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Chambers v. State of SC, 98-7654 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-7654 Visitors: 121
Filed: Mar. 18, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7654 WILLIAM D. CHAMBERS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; MICHAEL MOORE, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (CA-97-2712-4-23BE) Submitted: March 11, 1999 Decided: March 18, 1999 Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublishe
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7654 WILLIAM D. CHAMBERS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; MICHAEL MOORE, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (CA-97-2712-4-23BE) Submitted: March 11, 1999 Decided: March 18, 1999 Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William D. Chambers, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Lauri J. Soles, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: William D. Chambers 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 certif- icate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Chambers v. South Carolina, No. CA-97- 2712-4-23BE (D.S.C. Sept. 30, 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