Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Watson v. Hill, 96-7228 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-7228 Visitors: 1
Filed: Apr. 02, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7228 EARL JAMES WATSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus CHARLES HILL, Superintendent, Odom Correction- al Institute, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, Chief District Judge. (CA-94-14-5-V) Submitted: March 27, 1996 Decided: April 2, 1997 Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublis
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7228 EARL JAMES WATSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus CHARLES HILL, Superintendent, Odom Correction- al Institute, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, Chief District Judge. (CA-94-14-5-V) Submitted: March 27, 1996 Decided: April 2, 1997 Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John William Crone, III, GAITHER, GORHAM & CRONE, Hickory, North Carolina, for Appellant. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Watson v. Hill, No. CA-94-14- 5-V (W.D.N.C. July 12, 1996). We dispense with oral argument be- cause 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
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