Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Edmond v. Moore, 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from David L. Edmond of the district court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court record and found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation to deny relief. The Fourth Circuit therefore denies a certificate of appealability and dismisses the appeal based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its opinion.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1999-02-22 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 98-7395

    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    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from David L. Edmond of the district court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court record and found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation to deny relief. The Fourth Circuit therefore denies a certificate of appealability and dismisses the appeal based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its opinion.

    Copyright:

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

    Edmond v. Moore, 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from David L. Edmond of the district court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court record and found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation to deny relief. The Fourth Circuit therefore denies a certificate of appealability and dismisses the appeal based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its opinion.

    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. 98-7395

    DAVID L. EDMOND,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    MICHAEL MOORE, Director of SCDC; 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 Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
    Judge. (CA-98-827-6-20-AK)

    Submitted:

    January 21, 1999

    Decided:

    February 22, 1999

    Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    David L. Edmond, Appellant Pro Se.
    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:
    David L. Edmond seeks to appeal the district courts order
    denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. 2254 (West
    1994 & Supp. 1998).

    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.

    See Edmond v. Moore, No. CA-98-827-6-20-AK

    (D.S.C. Aug. 19, 1998). 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