Filed: Jul. 26, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7372 CORNELIUS TUCKER, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus GARY DIXON; STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; DEPART- MENT OF CORRECTIONS; LYNN PHILLIPS; MICHAEL EASLEY, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Chief District Judge. (CA-94-108-5-F) Submitted: January 30, 1996 Decided: July 26, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7372 CORNELIUS TUCKER, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus GARY DIXON; STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; DEPART- MENT OF CORRECTIONS; LYNN PHILLIPS; MICHAEL EASLEY, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Chief District Judge. (CA-94-108-5-F) Submitted: January 30, 1996 Decided: July 26, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON,..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7372
CORNELIUS TUCKER, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
GARY DIXON; STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; DEPART-
MENT OF CORRECTIONS; LYNN PHILLIPS; MICHAEL
EASLEY,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Chief District
Judge. (CA-94-108-5-F)
Submitted: January 30, 1996 Decided: July 26, 1996
Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Cornelius Tucker, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 (1988) petition. Although we note
that the district court did not specifically address Appellant's
claim that his probation revocation was based on perjured testi-
mony, it was not an abuse of discretion to dismiss this allegation
of a "vague, conclusory or palpably incredible nature" without a
hearing. See Raines v. United States,
423 F.2d 526, 531 (4th Cir.
1970) (quoting Machibroda v. United States,
368 U.S. 487, 495
(1962)). With regard to the three remaining claims, we have re-
viewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable
cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the
district court. Tucker v. Dixon, No. CA-94-108-5-F (E.D.N.C. Aug.
29, 1995). 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