Filed: Jun. 07, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7466 APRIL LEIGH BARBER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus CAROL CARDWELL, Superintendent of North Caro- lina Correctional Institute for Women, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Statesville. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-97-70-5-MU) Submitted: March 30, 1999 Decided: June 7, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Jud
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7466 APRIL LEIGH BARBER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus CAROL CARDWELL, Superintendent of North Caro- lina Correctional Institute for Women, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Statesville. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-97-70-5-MU) Submitted: March 30, 1999 Decided: June 7, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judg..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-7466
APRIL LEIGH BARBER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
CAROL CARDWELL, Superintendent of North Caro-
lina Correctional Institute for Women,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Statesville. Graham C. Mullen, Chief
District Judge. (CA-97-70-5-MU)
Submitted: March 30, 1999 Decided: June 7, 1999
Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
April Leigh Barber, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
April Leigh Barber appeals the district court’s order denying
relief on her petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &
Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s
opinion and find no reversible error. We deny Barber’s motion to
hold her case in abeyance pending the Supreme Court’s review of
Williams v. Taylor,
163 F.3d 860 (4th Cir. 1998), cert. granted,
67
U.S.L.W. 3612 (U.S. Apr. 5, 1999) (No. 98-8384). The issues before
the Court in Williams are unrelated to the dispositive issues of
Barber’s case. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability
and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See
Barber v. Caldwell, No. CA-97-70-5-MU (W.D.N.C. Sept. 17, 1998).
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