Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Ferguson v. State of SC, 99-6367 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 99-6367 Visitors: 35
Filed: Jul. 27, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6367 PEGGY TAYLOR FERGUSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; CHARLIE CONDON, At- torney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. No. 99-6368 PEGGY TAYLOR FERGUSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus MICHAEL W. MOORE, Commissioner of SCDC; CHARLIE CONDON, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondents - Appellees. Appeals from
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6367 PEGGY TAYLOR FERGUSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; CHARLIE CONDON, At- torney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. No. 99-6368 PEGGY TAYLOR FERGUSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus MICHAEL W. MOORE, Commissioner of SCDC; CHARLIE CONDON, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondents - Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-98-3495-2-10-AJ, CA-98-3497-2-10-AJ) Submitted: July 22, 1999 Decided: July 27, 1999 Before ERVIN, HAMILTON, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Peggy Taylor Ferguson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Peggy Taylor Ferguson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on her petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1999). We have reviewed the record and the dis- trict court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magis- trate judge 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 Ferguson v. Moore, Nos. CA-98- 3495-2-10-AJ; CA-98-3497-2-10-AJ (D.S.C. Feb. 22, 1999). We dis- pense 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
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