Filed: Jul. 23, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6326 ROBERT LEE DAVIS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus HUBERT STONE, Respondent - Appellee.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-96-896-5-H) Submitted: July 10, 1997 Decided: July 23, 1997 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Lee Davis, Appellant Pro Se.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6326 ROBERT LEE DAVIS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus HUBERT STONE, Respondent - Appellee.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-96-896-5-H) Submitted: July 10, 1997 Decided: July 23, 1997 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Lee Davis, Appellant Pro Se. U..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6326 ROBERT LEE DAVIS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus HUBERT STONE, Respondent - Appellee.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-96-896-5-H) Submitted: July 10, 1997 Decided: July 23, 1997 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Lee Davis, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997) and order denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appeal- ability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court.* Davis v. Stone, No. CA-96-896-5-H (E.D.N.C. Jan. 24 & Feb. 19, 1997). We deny the motion to expedite and 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 * We note that before petitioner files any subsequent habeas petitions in the district court he must seek authorization to file a successive petition with this Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 2244, 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). 2