Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Dillard v. Bumgarner, 00-7328 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-7328 Visitors: 4
Filed: Dec. 04, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7328 THOMAS T. DILLARD, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus MICHAEL BUMGARNER, Correctional Administrator I (NCI); MICHAEL F. EASLEY, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-99-270-1-1-MU) Submitted: November 9, 2000 Decided: December 4, 2000 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HAMI
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7328 THOMAS T. DILLARD, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus MICHAEL BUMGARNER, Correctional Administrator I (NCI); MICHAEL F. EASLEY, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-99-270-1-1-MU) Submitted: November 9, 2000 Decided: December 4, 2000 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas T. Dillard, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Michael F. Easley, Clarence Joe DelForge, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Thomas T. Dillard, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000). We grant Dillard’s motion to amend his informal brief and consider the issues raised therein. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appeal- ability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Dillard v. Bumgarner, No. CA-99-270-1-1-MU (W.D.N.C. Sept. 6, 2000). In addition, we deny petitioner’s motion for ap- pointment of counsel. We also deny Dillard’s request for 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