Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Alston v. Clark, 99-6153 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 99-6153
Filed: Aug. 03, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6153 ALPHONSO EUGENE ALSTON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus J. J. CLARK, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-98-519-HC-5-BO) Submitted: June 8, 1999 Decided: August 3, 1999 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alphonso Eugene Alston, Appe
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6153 ALPHONSO EUGENE ALSTON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus J. J. CLARK, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-98-519-HC-5-BO) Submitted: June 8, 1999 Decided: August 3, 1999 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alphonso Eugene Alston, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Alphonso Eugene Alston seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1999). In February 1984, Alston was convicted of misdemeanor assault on a correctional officer in Wake County District Court in Raleigh, North Carolina, and sentenced to two years’ incarceration. Alston, who is currently serving a federal sentence, filed no appeals or collateral attacks as to his 1984 conviction and did not execute his § 2254 petition until June 8, 1998. He has presumably served his sentence for the 1984 con- viction. 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 Alston v. Clark, No. CA-98-519-HC-5-BO (E.D.N.C. Jan. 14, 1999). 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