Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Little v. NC Attorney General, 98-7256 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-7256 Visitors: 28
Filed: Jan. 20, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7256 EUGENE LITTLE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus NORTH CAROLINA ATTORNEY GENERAL; MACK JARVIS; DEAN WALKER, Superintendent, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., Dis- trict Judge. (CA-97-833-1) Submitted: January 5, 1999 Decided: January 20, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN, ERVIN, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by u
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7256 EUGENE LITTLE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus NORTH CAROLINA ATTORNEY GENERAL; MACK JARVIS; DEAN WALKER, Superintendent, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., Dis- trict Judge. (CA-97-833-1) Submitted: January 5, 1999 Decided: January 20, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN, ERVIN, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eugene Little, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Eugene Little appeals 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 appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Little v. NC Attorney General, No. CA-97-833-1 (M.D.N.C. July 27, 1998). We also deny Little’s motion for appointment of appellant counsel. 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 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