Filed: Apr. 13, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7763 DONTEZ LAMONT SIMUEL, Petitioner - Appellant, versus ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-02-898-5-H) Submitted: March 31, 2004 Decided: April 13, 2004 Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opini
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7763 DONTEZ LAMONT SIMUEL, Petitioner - Appellant, versus ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-02-898-5-H) Submitted: March 31, 2004 Decided: April 13, 2004 Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinio..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7763
DONTEZ LAMONT SIMUEL,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NORTH
CAROLINA,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard,
District Judge. (CA-02-898-5-H)
Submitted: March 31, 2004 Decided: April 13, 2004
Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dontez Lamont Simuel, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Dontez Lamont Simuel seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition and
denying his motion for reconsideration. We have independently
reviewed the record and conclude that Simuel has not made a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See
Miller-El v. Cockrell,
537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003). Accordingly, we
deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). We deny Simuel’s motion to proceed in
forma pauperis. 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 -