Filed: Mar. 08, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7324 ALFREDO SIMPSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STEPHEN DEWALT, Warden of the Federal Correc- tional Institute at Petersburg, Virginia; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CA-98-269-5-BR) Submitted: February 25, 1999 Decided: March 8, 1999 Before HAMILTON,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7324 ALFREDO SIMPSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STEPHEN DEWALT, Warden of the Federal Correc- tional Institute at Petersburg, Virginia; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CA-98-269-5-BR) Submitted: February 25, 1999 Decided: March 8, 1999 Before HAMILTON, W..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7324 ALFREDO SIMPSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STEPHEN DEWALT, Warden of the Federal Correc- tional Institute at Petersburg, Virginia; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CA-98-269-5-BR) Submitted: February 25, 1999 Decided: March 8, 1999 Before HAMILTON, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alfredo Simpson, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Alfredo Simpson 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 dis- trict court. See Simpson v. DeWalt, No. CA-98-269-5-BR (E.D.N.C. Aug. 17, 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