Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Coleman v. State of SC, 96-6078 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-6078 Visitors: 5
Filed: Jun. 04, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6078 RALPH COLEMAN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-95-1702-6-20AK) Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: June 4, 1996 Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublish
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6078 RALPH COLEMAN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-95-1702-6-20AK) Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: June 4, 1996 Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ralph Coleman, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 (1988) petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recom- mendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Coleman v. South Carolina, No. CA-95-1702-6-20AK (D.S.C. Dec. 21, 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