Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Terrell v. Miro, 98-7340 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-7340 Visitors: 9
Filed: Nov. 23, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7340 LELMON JACKSON TERRELL, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GERALDINE MIRO, Warden; ALLENDALE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION; CHARLES CONDON, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CA-97-3408-6-10AK) Submitted: November 5, 1998 Decided: November 23, 1998 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7340 LELMON JACKSON TERRELL, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GERALDINE MIRO, Warden; ALLENDALE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION; CHARLES CONDON, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CA-97-3408-6-10AK) Submitted: November 5, 1998 Decided: November 23, 1998 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lelmon Jackson Terrell, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Lelmon Jackson Terrell seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying as untimely 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 magis- trate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reason- ing of the district court. Terrell v. Miro, No. CA-97-3408-6-10AK (D.S.C. Aug. 19, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate- rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 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