Filed: Oct. 11, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6452 JASPER NAPOLEON BUCHANAN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-99-1797-0-8BD) Submitted: October 4, 2001 Decided: October 11, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by un
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6452 JASPER NAPOLEON BUCHANAN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-99-1797-0-8BD) Submitted: October 4, 2001 Decided: October 11, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unp..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-6452
JASPER NAPOLEON BUCHANAN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
SOUTH CAROLINA,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior District
Judge. (CA-99-1797-0-8BD)
Submitted: October 4, 2001 Decided: October 11, 2001
Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jasper Napoleon Buchanan, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka,
Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Jasper Napoleon Buchanan seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254
(West 1994 & Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record and the
district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the
magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we
deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the
reasoning of the district court. See Buchanan v. South Carolina,
No. CA-99-1797-0-8BD (D.S.C. filed Mar. 17, 2000; entered Mar. 20,
2000); see also Crawley v. Catoe,
257 F.3d 395 (4th Cir. 2001).*
We deny Buchanan’s “motion for procedure of default.” 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
*
This appeal was placed in abeyance for No. 00-6817, Atkinson
v. Angelone.
2