Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Foust v. Attorney General NC, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing Theodore Morris Foust's appeal of a district court's denial of his habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation. The appellate court therefore denied Foust's request for a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismissed the appeal based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its March 27, 1996 order.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1996-10-10 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 96-6598

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing Theodore Morris Foust's appeal of a district court's denial of his habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation. The appellate court therefore denied Foust's request for a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismissed the appeal based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its March 27, 1996 order.

    Copyright:

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

    Foust v. Attorney General NC, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing Theodore Morris Foust's appeal of a district court's denial of his habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation. The appellate court therefore denied Foust's request for a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismissed the appeal based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its March 27, 1996 order.

    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. 96-6598

    THEODORE MORRIS FOUST,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA; TALMADGE
    L. BARNETT,
    Respondents - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Sr.,
    District Judge. (CA-95-172-2)
    Submitted:

    October 3, 1996

    Decided:

    October 10, 1996

    Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.


    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Theodore Morris Foust, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge,
    III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh,
    North Carolina, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying
    relief on his habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. 2254 (1994),
    amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996,
    Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record
    and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of
    the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we
    deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal; to the extent a
    certificate of appealability is required, we deny such a certificate. We dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court.
    Foust v. Attorney General, No. CA-95-172-2 (M.D.N.C. Mar. 27,
    1996). 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