Filed: Mar. 04, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7599 WALTER HAYWARD COPPAGE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DAVID MITCHELL, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-01-358-3-1MU) Submitted: February 21, 2002 Decided: March 4, 2002 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Walter Hayward Copp
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7599 WALTER HAYWARD COPPAGE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DAVID MITCHELL, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-01-358-3-1MU) Submitted: February 21, 2002 Decided: March 4, 2002 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Walter Hayward Coppa..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7599 WALTER HAYWARD COPPAGE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DAVID MITCHELL, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-01-358-3-1MU) Submitted: February 21, 2002 Decided: March 4, 2002 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Walter Hayward Coppage, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Walter Hayward Coppage 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 dis- trict court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the dis- trict court. See Coppage v. Mitchell, No. CA-01-358-3-1MU (W.D.N.C. filed Aug. 30, 2001; entered Sept. 6, 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
