Filed: Sep. 14, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-14 SHAN EDWARD CARTER, Petitioner - Appellant, v. CARLTON B. JOYNER, Warden, Central Prison, Raleigh, North Carolina, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, Chief District Judge. (5:16-hc-02108-D) Submitted: September 6, 2016 Decided: September 14, 2016 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Jud
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-14 SHAN EDWARD CARTER, Petitioner - Appellant, v. CARLTON B. JOYNER, Warden, Central Prison, Raleigh, North Carolina, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, Chief District Judge. (5:16-hc-02108-D) Submitted: September 6, 2016 Decided: September 14, 2016 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judg..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-14
SHAN EDWARD CARTER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
CARLTON B. JOYNER, Warden, Central Prison, Raleigh, North
Carolina,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III,
Chief District Judge. (5:16-hc-02108-D)
Submitted: September 6, 2016 Decided: September 14, 2016
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit
Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Shan Edward Carter, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Shan Edward Carter appeals the district court’s order
dismissing without prejudice Carter's “Memorandum of Pro Se
Defendant’s Intent to Request Appointment of Independent,
qualified ‘Martinez’ counsel pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3599(b)
thru (d).” The district court dismissed the action as premature
after Carter confirmed that he did not wish to file a federal
habeas corpus petition and had not exhausted his state court
remedies. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. Carter v. Joyner, No. 5:16-hc-02108-D (E.D.N.C.
June 28, 2016). We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2