Filed: Sep. 24, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6686 CALVIN WAYNE BARBER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus MACK JARVIS; J. J. CLARK, Superintendent, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CA-97-882-5-BR) Submitted: September 10, 1998 Decided: September 24, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per cur
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6686 CALVIN WAYNE BARBER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus MACK JARVIS; J. J. CLARK, Superintendent, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CA-97-882-5-BR) Submitted: September 10, 1998 Decided: September 24, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curi..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6686 CALVIN WAYNE BARBER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus MACK JARVIS; J. J. CLARK, Superintendent, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CA-97-882-5-BR) Submitted: September 10, 1998 Decided: September 24, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Calvin Wayne Barber, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe Delforge, III, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of ap- pealability, deny Appellant’s motion for a certificate of probable cause to appeal, and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Barber v. Jarvis, No. CA-97-882-5-BR (E.D.N.C. Apr. 2, 1998). 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