Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Propst v. State of North Carl, 96-7440 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-7440 Visitors: 17
Filed: Jan. 06, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7440 PHILLIP M. PROPST, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Respondent - Appellee. No. 96-7533 PHILLIP M. PROPST, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Graham C. Mullen, District Judge. (CA-95-151-5-MU) Submitted: December 19, 1996 Decided: January 6, 1997 Be
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7440 PHILLIP M. PROPST, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Respondent - Appellee. No. 96-7533 PHILLIP M. PROPST, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Graham C. Mullen, District Judge. (CA-95-151-5-MU) Submitted: December 19, 1996 Decided: January 6, 1997 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Phillip M. Propst, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his habeas corpus petition, 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, and his motion for reconsider- ation. 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 appeals on the reasoning of the dis- trict court. Propst v. North Carolina, No. CA-95-151-5-MU (W.D.N.C. Aug. 22, 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 decisional process. DISMISSED 2 3
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