Filed: Jul. 20, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6524 KENAN REID PARTOZES, Petitioner - Appellant, versus MARCUS HUGHES, Respondent - Appellee.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-00-938-HC-F) Submitted: July 12, 2001 Decided: July 20, 2001 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kenan Reid Partozes, Appellant
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6524 KENAN REID PARTOZES, Petitioner - Appellant, versus MARCUS HUGHES, Respondent - Appellee.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-00-938-HC-F) Submitted: July 12, 2001 Decided: July 20, 2001 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kenan Reid Partozes, Appellant ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6524 KENAN REID PARTOZES, Petitioner - Appellant, versus MARCUS HUGHES, Respondent - Appellee.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-00-938-HC-F) Submitted: July 12, 2001 Decided: July 20, 2001 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kenan Reid Partozes, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Kenan Reid Partozes seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000) and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appeal- ability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Partozes v. Hughes, No. CA-00-938-HC-F (E.D.N.C. filed Jan. 30, 2001; entered Jan. 31, 2001; and filed Feb. 16, 2001; entered Feb. 17, 2001). Further, we deny Partozes’ motion for appointment of counsel. 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