Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Simpson v. Cepak, 95-7630 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-7630 Visitors: 33
Filed: Mar. 07, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7630 MICHAEL SIMPSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus CHARLES J. CEPAK, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CA-94-1776-3-22BC) Submitted: January 18, 1996 Decided: March 7, 1996 Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circu
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7630 MICHAEL SIMPSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus CHARLES J. CEPAK, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CA-94-1776-3-22BC) Submitted: January 18, 1996 Decided: March 7, 1996 Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Simpson, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 (1988) petition, and his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinions 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. Simpson v. Cepak, No. CA-94- 1776-3-22BC (D.S.C. Aug. 14, 1995; Sept. 13, 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
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