Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Huggins v. Boyette, 01-7703 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-7703 Visitors: 30
Filed: Jan. 09, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7703 WILLIAM M. HUGGINS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus BONNIE BOYETTE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Statesville. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-01-73-1-5-MU) Submitted: December 20, 2001 Decided: January 9, 2002 Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William M. Hugg
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7703 WILLIAM M. HUGGINS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus BONNIE BOYETTE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Statesville. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-01-73-1-5-MU) Submitted: December 20, 2001 Decided: January 9, 2002 Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William M. Huggins, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: William Huggins seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2001) and his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appeal- ability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Huggins v. Boyette, No. CA-01-73-1-5-MU (W.D.N.C., Aug. 20, 2001, & Sept. 13, 2001). We also deny Huggins’ motion to dis- miss the indictment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate- rials 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