Filed: Apr. 01, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-8019 ALFRED F. WORLEY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DAVID MITCHELL, Superintendent, Mountain View Correctional Institution, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-00-13-1-MU) Submitted: March 20, 2002 Decided: April 1, 2002 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unp
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-8019 ALFRED F. WORLEY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DAVID MITCHELL, Superintendent, Mountain View Correctional Institution, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-00-13-1-MU) Submitted: March 20, 2002 Decided: April 1, 2002 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpu..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-8019 ALFRED F. WORLEY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DAVID MITCHELL, Superintendent, Mountain View Correctional Institution, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-00-13-1-MU) Submitted: March 20, 2002 Decided: April 1, 2002 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alfred F. Worley, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Alfred F. Worley appeals 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 district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Worley v. Mitchell, No. CA-00- 13-1-MU (W.D.N.C. Nov. 13, 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