Filed: Dec. 10, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7384 KEITH PRESTWOOD, Petitioner - Appellant, versus J. R. HUNT, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-96-564-5-H-3) Submitted: October 29, 1996 Decided: December 10, 1996 Before HALL, MURNAGHAN, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Keith Prestwood, Appellant Pro
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7384 KEITH PRESTWOOD, Petitioner - Appellant, versus J. R. HUNT, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-96-564-5-H-3) Submitted: October 29, 1996 Decided: December 10, 1996 Before HALL, MURNAGHAN, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Keith Prestwood, Appellant Pro ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7384 KEITH PRESTWOOD, Petitioner - Appellant, versus J. R. HUNT, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-96-564-5-H-3) Submitted: October 29, 1996 Decided: December 10, 1996 Before HALL, MURNAGHAN, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Keith Prestwood, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his motion for relief 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 and find no reversible error. Accord- ingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss on the reasoning of the district court. Prestwood v. Hunt, No. CA-96-564- 5-H-3 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 21, 1996). 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 deci- sional process. DISMISSED 2
