Filed: Feb. 24, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7638 RUSSELL D. RHYNE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus CHARLES CREECY, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-98-333-3-2-MU) Submitted: February 11, 1999 Decided: February 24, 1999 Before ERVIN, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Russell D. Rhyne,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7638 RUSSELL D. RHYNE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus CHARLES CREECY, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-98-333-3-2-MU) Submitted: February 11, 1999 Decided: February 24, 1999 Before ERVIN, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Russell D. Rhyne, A..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7638 RUSSELL D. RHYNE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus CHARLES CREECY, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-98-333-3-2-MU) Submitted: February 11, 1999 Decided: February 24, 1999 Before ERVIN, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Russell D. Rhyne, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Russell Rhyne seeks to appeal the district court’s order deny- ing 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 certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the rea- soning of the district court. See Rhyne v. Creecy, No. CA-98-333- 3-2-MU (W.D.N.C. Sept. 30, 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
