Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Anderson v. Cepak, 96-6645 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-6645 Visitors: 5
Filed: Nov. 21, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6645 MOSES ANDERSON, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus CHARLES J. CEPAK, Warden; STATE OF SOUTH CARO- LINA; 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. C. Weston Houck, Chief District Judge. (CA-95-754-6-2AK) Submitted: November 12, 1996 Decided: November 21, 1996 Before LUTTIG and WILLIAMS, Circui
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6645 MOSES ANDERSON, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus CHARLES J. CEPAK, Warden; STATE OF SOUTH CARO- LINA; 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. C. Weston Houck, Chief District Judge. (CA-95-754-6-2AK) Submitted: November 12, 1996 Decided: November 21, 1996 Before LUTTIG and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Moses Anderson, Jr., 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 filed under 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magis- trate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reason- ing of the district court. Anderson v. Cepak, No. CA-95-754-6-2AK (D.S.C. Apr. 1, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate- rials 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