Filed: Jun. 01, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7566 WILLIAM JEFFERY HARPER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DAVID CHESTER, Respondent - Appellee.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-98-184-5-HC-H) Submitted: April 13, 1999 Decided: June 1, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Jeffery Harper, Appe
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7566 WILLIAM JEFFERY HARPER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DAVID CHESTER, Respondent - Appellee.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-98-184-5-HC-H) Submitted: April 13, 1999 Decided: June 1, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Jeffery Harper, Appel..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7566 WILLIAM JEFFERY HARPER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DAVID CHESTER, Respondent - Appellee.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-98-184-5-HC-H) Submitted: April 13, 1999 Decided: June 1, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Jeffery Harper, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: William Jeffery Harper seeks to appeal 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 dis- trict court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Harper v. Chester, No. CA-98-184-5-HC-H (E.D.N.C. Sept. 22, 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