Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Shuler v. Miro, 4th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    11 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Tony Shuler's appeal of a district court order denying his petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 and denying his motion to reconsider. The appellate court found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation to deny the petition. The appellate court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its orders denying relief.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2001-02-15 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 00-7689

    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 Tony Shuler's appeal of a district court order denying his petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 and denying his motion to reconsider. The appellate court found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation to deny the petition. The appellate court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its orders denying relief.

    Copyright:

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

    Shuler v. Miro, 4th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Tony Shuler's appeal of a district court order denying his petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 and denying his motion to reconsider. The appellate court found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation to deny the petition. The appellate court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its orders denying relief.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 00-7689

    TONY SHULER,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    GERALDINE P. MIRO, Warden, ACI; SOUTH CAROLINA
    DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; CHARLES M. CONDON,
    Attorney General of the State of South
    Carolina,
    Respondents - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge.
    (CA-99-1868-3-24BC)

    Submitted:

    February 8, 2001

    Decided:

    February 15, 2001

    Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Tony Shuler, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, III, OFFICE
    OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Tony Shuler seeks to appeal the district courts orders denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. 2254 (West
    1994 & Supp. 2000), and denying his motion to reconsider.

    We have

    reviewed the record and the district courts opinion accepting the
    recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible
    error.

    Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

    dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court.

    Shuler

    v. Miro, No. CA-99-1868-3-24BC (D.S.C. filed Sept. 7, 2000; entered


    Sept. 8, 2000, & filed Oct. 30, 2000; entered Oct. 31, 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