Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Haburn v. NC Atty Gen, 96-6470 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-6470 Visitors: 19
Filed: Jul. 15, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: Filed: July 15, 1996 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6470 (CA-95-397-1) James D. Haburn, Sr., Petitioner - Appellant, versus North Carolina Attorney General, et al, Respondents - Appellees. O R D E R The Court amends its opinion filed June 6, 1996, as follows: On the cover sheet, section 3 - the district court informa- tion is corrected to read "Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Sr.,
More
Filed: July 15, 1996 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6470 (CA-95-397-1) James D. Haburn, Sr., Petitioner - Appellant, versus North Carolina Attorney General, et al, Respondents - Appellees. O R D E R The Court amends its opinion filed June 6, 1996, as follows: On the cover sheet, section 3 -- the district court informa- tion is corrected to read "Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Sr., District Judge. (CA-95-397-1)" On page 2, line 7 of the opinion -- "E.D.N.C." is corrected to read "M.D.N.C." For the Court - By Direction /s/ Bert M. Montague Clerk 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6470 JAMES D. HABURN, SR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus NORTH CAROLINA ATTORNEY GENERAL; W. K. JONES, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Sr., District Judge. (CA-95-397-1) Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: June 6, 1996 Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James D. Haburn, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Del Forge, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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). 3 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. Haburn v. North Carolina Attorney General, No. CA-95-397-1 (M.D.N.C. Mar. 7, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten- tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 4
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