Filed: Jul. 29, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 01, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7717 ROY GAREY LINDSEY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus MICHAEL W. MOORE; CHARLES M. CONDON, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. William B. Traxler, Jr., District Judge. (CA-96-126-10-21BD) Submitted: March 31, 1999 Decided: July 29, 1999 Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7717 ROY GAREY LINDSEY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus MICHAEL W. MOORE; CHARLES M. CONDON, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. William B. Traxler, Jr., District Judge. (CA-96-126-10-21BD) Submitted: March 31, 1999 Decided: July 29, 1999 Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER,..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-7717
ROY GAREY LINDSEY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
MICHAEL W. MOORE; CHARLES M. CONDON, Attorney
General of the State of South Carolina,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. William B. Traxler, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-96-126-10-21BD)
Submitted: March 31, 1999 Decided: July 29, 1999
Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Roy Garey Lindsey, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief
Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina; Robert Eric
Petersen, William Ansel Collins, Jr., Byron Ronald Roberts, SOUTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Appellant 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 opin-
ion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the
reasoning of the district court. See Lindsey v. Moore, No. CA-96-
126-10-21BD (D.S.C. July 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.
AFFIRMED
2