Filed: Jul. 15, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 01, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6431 DONALD RAY HOOKS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA; DEAN WALKER, Superintendent, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge. (CA-98-372-1) Submitted: June 29, 1999 Decided: July 15, 1999 Before HAMILTON, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished pe
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6431 DONALD RAY HOOKS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA; DEAN WALKER, Superintendent, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge. (CA-98-372-1) Submitted: June 29, 1999 Decided: July 15, 1999 Before HAMILTON, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-6431
DONALD RAY HOOKS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA; DEAN
WALKER, Superintendent,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-98-372-1)
Submitted: June 29, 1999 Decided: July 15, 1999
Before HAMILTON, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John David Bryson, WYATT, EARLY, HARRIS, WHEELER & HAUSER, High
Point, North Carolina, for Appellant. Clarence Joe DelForge, III,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Donald Ray Hooks seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West
1994 & Supp. 1999). We have reviewed the record and the district
court’s opinion and find that Hooks has failed to make a substan-
tial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See 28
U.S.C.A. § 2253(c) (West Supp. 1999). Accordingly, we deny a cer-
tificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate-
ly presented in the materials before the Court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2