Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Jordan v. Beck, 01-6497 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-6497 Visitors: 10
Filed: Oct. 01, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6497 HENRY GUIDO JORDAN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus THEODIS BECK, Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Correction, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CA-00-141-1) Submitted: August 28, 2001 Decided: October 1, 2001 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6497 HENRY GUIDO JORDAN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus THEODIS BECK, Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Correction, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CA-00-141-1) Submitted: August 28, 2001 Decided: October 1, 2001 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Henry Guido Jordan, Appellant Pro Se. Howard Alan Pell, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Henry Guido Jordan appeals the district court’s order denying 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 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 Jordan v. Beck, No. CA-00-141-1 (M.D.N.C. Mar. 14, 2001). We also deny Jordan’s motion for appointment of coun- sel. 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