Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Ballance v. Jarvis, 99-6008 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 99-6008 Visitors: 35
Filed: Mar. 18, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6008 JOSEPH ROBERT BALLANCE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus MACK JARVIS, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge. (CA-98-106-5-HC-F(3)) Submitted: March 11, 1999 Decided: March 18, 1999 Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jo
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6008 JOSEPH ROBERT BALLANCE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus MACK JARVIS, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge. (CA-98-106-5-HC-F(3)) Submitted: March 11, 1999 Decided: March 18, 1999 Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph Robert Ballance, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Joseph Ballance 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 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 Ballance v. Jarvis, No. CA-98-106-5-HC-F(3) (E.D.N.C. Dec. 2, 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
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer