Filed: Feb. 24, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7457 RAMULUS A. MASON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus MARTIN J. MCDADE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-98-442-5-H) Submitted: February 11, 1999 Decided: February 24, 1999 Before ERVIN, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ramulus A. Mason, Appell
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7457 RAMULUS A. MASON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus MARTIN J. MCDADE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-98-442-5-H) Submitted: February 11, 1999 Decided: February 24, 1999 Before ERVIN, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ramulus A. Mason, Appella..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7457 RAMULUS A. MASON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus MARTIN J. MCDADE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-98-442-5-H) Submitted: February 11, 1999 Decided: February 24, 1999 Before ERVIN, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ramulus A. Mason, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Ramulus Mason 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 and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a cer- tificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Mason v. McDade, No. CA-98-442-5-H (E.D.N.C. Sept. 15, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma- terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2
