Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Cox v. Hathaway, 96-7109 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-7109 Visitors: 15
Filed: Dec. 12, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7109 BENJAMIN E. COX, Petitioner - Appellant, versus ANTHONY HATHAWAY, III, Superintendent; FRANK- LIN FREEMAN, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-95-952-5-H) Submitted: November 21, 1996 Decided: December 12, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7109 BENJAMIN E. COX, Petitioner - Appellant, versus ANTHONY HATHAWAY, III, Superintendent; FRANK- LIN FREEMAN, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-95-952-5-H) Submitted: November 21, 1996 Decided: December 12, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Benjamin E. Cox, Appellant Pro Se. Sharon Coull Wilson, Associate Attorney General, Mark John Pletzke, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 rea- soning of the district court. Cox v. Hathaway, No. CA-95-952-5-H (E.D.N.C. July 11, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma- terials 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