Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Crosland v. Davis, 96-6052 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-6052 Visitors: 18
Filed: Aug. 14, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6052 LARRY CROSLAND, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WILLIAM R. DAVIS, Warden; CHARLIE CONDON, At- torney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-95-886-17BD) Submitted: July 25, 1996 Decided: August 14, 1996 Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS,
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6052 LARRY CROSLAND, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WILLIAM R. DAVIS, Warden; CHARLIE CONDON, At- torney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-95-886-17BD) Submitted: July 25, 1996 Decided: August 14, 1996 Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry Crosland, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 order denying relief on his petition for habeas corpus relief, 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 (1988), as amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1217. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommenda- tion of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accord- ingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal; to the extent that a certificate of appealability is required, we deny such a certificate. We dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Crosland v. Davis, No. CA-95-886-17BD (D.S.C. Dec. 12, 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