Filed: Feb. 22, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7349 GEORGE A. SMITH, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (CA-97-1795-3-23BC) Submitted: January 21, 1999 Decided: February 22, 1999 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curi
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7349 GEORGE A. SMITH, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (CA-97-1795-3-23BC) Submitted: January 21, 1999 Decided: February 22, 1999 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curia..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7349 GEORGE A. SMITH, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (CA-97-1795-3-23BC) Submitted: January 21, 1999 Decided: February 22, 1999 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. George A. Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Lauri J. Soles, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: George A. Smith appeals the district court’s order denying re- lief 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 Smith v. South Carolina, No. CA-97-1795-3-23BC (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