Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Shuler v. Miro, 00-7689 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-7689 Visitors: 13
Filed: Feb. 15, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7689 TONY SHULER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GERALDINE P. MIRO, Warden, ACI; SOUTH CAROLINA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 Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CA-99-1868-3-24BC) Submitted: February 8, 2001 Decided: February 15, 2001 Befor
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7689 TONY SHULER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GERALDINE P. MIRO, Warden, ACI; SOUTH CAROLINA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 Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CA-99-1868-3-24BC) Submitted: February 8, 2001 Decided: February 15, 2001 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tony Shuler, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Caro- lina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Tony Shuler seeks to appeal the district court’s orders deny- ing relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000), and denying his motion to reconsider. 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. Shuler v. Miro, No. CA-99-1868-3-24BC (D.S.C. filed Sept. 7, 2000; entered Sept. 8, 2000, & filed Oct. 30, 2000; entered Oct. 31, 2000). 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