Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Wertz v. Moore, 99-7526 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 99-7526 Visitors: 22
Filed: Apr. 19, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7526 GEORGE R. WERTZ, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus MICHAEL MOORE, Director of South Carolina Department of Corrections; CHARLES M. CONDON, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CA-98-1577-22BE) Submitted: April 13, 2000 Decided: April 19, 2000 Befor
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7526 GEORGE R. WERTZ, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus MICHAEL MOORE, Director of South Carolina Department of Corrections; CHARLES M. CONDON, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CA-98-1577-22BE) Submitted: April 13, 2000 Decided: April 19, 2000 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. George R. Wertz, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, William Edgar Salter, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: George R. Wertz, Jr., appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1999) and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court's orders 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 Wertz v. Moore, No. CA-98-1577-22BE (D.S.C. Sept. 13 & Oct. 4, 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
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