Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Robinson v. NC Attorney General, 96-6914 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-6914 Visitors: 12
Filed: Oct. 25, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6914 RESTONEY ROBINSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus NORTH CAROLINA ATTORNEY GENERAL; TOMMY LEE TINSLEY; WALTER JOHNSON; PAUL B. CALHOUN; HOWARD L. WOOTEN; W. PERRY MCNAIR; R. G. WAULER; CARRIE A. MOCK; PARRY H. LEARY, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge. (CA-96-1) Submitted: October 17, 1996 D
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6914 RESTONEY ROBINSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus NORTH CAROLINA ATTORNEY GENERAL; TOMMY LEE TINSLEY; WALTER JOHNSON; PAUL B. CALHOUN; HOWARD L. WOOTEN; W. PERRY MCNAIR; R. G. WAULER; CARRIE A. MOCK; PARRY H. LEARY, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge. (CA-96-1) Submitted: October 17, 1996 Decided: October 25, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Restoney Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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). 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. Robinson v. Attorney General of North Carolina, No. CA-96-1 (M.D.N.C. May 14, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate- ly 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