Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Parker v. State of SC, 4th Cir. (2000)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed John Thomas Parker's appeal of a district court order granting summary judgment to the Respondents and dismissing Parker's habeas corpus petition. The appeals court upheld the district court's determination that Parker failed to demonstrate his trial outcome would have been different but for alleged errors by his counsel, as required by Strickland v. Washington. Accordingly, the appeals court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal without oral argument.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2000-12-27 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 00-6640

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed John Thomas Parker's appeal of a district court order granting summary judgment to the Respondents and dismissing Parker's habeas corpus petition. The appeals court upheld the district court's determination that Parker failed to demonstrate his trial outcome would have been different but for alleged errors by his counsel, as required by Strickland v. Washington. Accordingly, the appeals court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal without oral argument.

    Copyright:

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

    Parker v. State of SC, 4th Cir. (2000)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed John Thomas Parker's appeal of a district court order granting summary judgment to the Respondents and dismissing Parker's habeas corpus petition. The appeals court upheld the district court's determination that Parker failed to demonstrate his trial outcome would have been different but for alleged errors by his counsel, as required by Strickland v. Washington. Accordingly, the appeals court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal without oral argument.

    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. 00-6640

    JOHN THOMAS PARKER,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; SOUTH CAROLINA
    DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, William Douglas
    Catoe, Director,
    Respondents - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Charleston. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District
    Judge. (CA-99-1470-2-13AJ)

    Submitted:

    November 30, 2000

    Decided:

    December 27, 2000

    Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Tara Dawn Shurling, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Donald
    John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    John Thomas Parker appeals the district courts order granting
    the Respondents motion for summary judgment and dismissing his
    petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000).
    We have reviewed the record and the district courts opinion
    accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no
    reversible error.

    We uphold the district courts determination

    that Parker has not demonstrated that his trial would have had a
    different outcome absent any alleged errors by counsel.
    Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984).

    See

    Accordingly,

    we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

    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