Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Sartori v. Lee, 4th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1 views2 pages
    1) Robert Allen Sartori filed a petition under 28 U.S.C.A § 2254 seeking habeas corpus relief, which the district court denied. Sartori then filed a Rule 60(b) motion for reconsideration, which was also denied. 2) Sartori appealed the denial of his Rule 60(b) motion. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. 3) The Fourth Circuit denied Sartori's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, denied a certificate of appealability, and dismissed the appeal based on the reasoning of the district court.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2001-03-01 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 00-7411

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1) Robert Allen Sartori filed a petition under 28 U.S.C.A § 2254 seeking habeas corpus relief, which the district court denied. Sartori then filed a Rule 60(b) motion for reconsideration, which was also denied. 2) Sartori appealed the denial of his Rule 60(b) motion. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. 3) The Fourth Circuit denied Sartori's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, denied a certificate of appealability, and dismissed the appeal based on the reasoning of the district court.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    1 views2 pages

    Sartori v. Lee, 4th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Robert Allen Sartori filed a petition under 28 U.S.C.A § 2254 seeking habeas corpus relief, which the district court denied. Sartori then filed a Rule 60(b) motion for reconsideration, which was also denied. 2) Sartori appealed the denial of his Rule 60(b) motion. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. 3) The Fourth Circuit denied Sartori's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, denied a certificate of appealability, and dismissed the appeal based on the reasoning of the district court.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 00-7411

    ROBERT ALLEN SARTORI,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    RANDY LEE; MICHAEL F. EASLEY,
    Respondents - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Chief
    District Judge. (CA-99-135-1-02-MU)

    Submitted:

    February 22, 2001

    Decided:

    March 1, 2001

    Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Robert Allen Sartori, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Robert Allen Sartori seeks to appeal the district courts
    order denying relief on his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion to reconsider a prior order denying relief on his petition filed pursuant
    to 28 U.S.C.A. 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000).

    We have reviewed

    the record and the district courts opinion and find no reversible
    error.

    Accordingly, we deny Sartoris motion to proceed in forma

    pauperis, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the


    appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Sartori v. Lee, No.
    CA-99-135-1-02-MU (W.D.N.C. Sept. 22, 2000). 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

    You might also like