Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Williams v. Jackson, 01-6251 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-6251 Visitors: 7
Filed: May 04, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6251 MICHAEL RAY WILLIAMS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RICK JACKSON, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CA-00-170-5-F3) Submitted: April 27, 2001 Decided: May 4, 2001 Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Micha
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6251 MICHAEL RAY WILLIAMS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RICK JACKSON, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CA-00-170-5-F3) Submitted: April 27, 2001 Decided: May 4, 2001 Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Ray Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Wallace-Smith, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Michael Ray Williams appeals the district court’s order deny- ing relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Williams’ motions for appointment of counsel and for a certificate of appealability, and we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Williams v. Jackson, No. CA-00-170-5-F3 (E.D.N.C. Jan. 17, 2001). 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