Filed: Nov. 24, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7335 MCKINLEY LUTHER AIKENS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus ROBERT EZZEL; MICHAEL F. EASLEY, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-99-109-1-1-MU) Submitted: November 18, 1999 Decided: November 24, 1999 Before WILKINS, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7335 MCKINLEY LUTHER AIKENS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus ROBERT EZZEL; MICHAEL F. EASLEY, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-99-109-1-1-MU) Submitted: November 18, 1999 Decided: November 24, 1999 Before WILKINS, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7335 MCKINLEY LUTHER AIKENS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus ROBERT EZZEL; MICHAEL F. EASLEY, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-99-109-1-1-MU) Submitted: November 18, 1999 Decided: November 24, 1999 Before WILKINS, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. McKinley Luther Aikens, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: McKinley Luther Aikens 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). We have reviewed the record and the dis- trict court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Aikens v. Ezzel, No. CA- 99-109-1-1-MU (W.D.N.C. Sept. 24, 1999). 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