Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 9 views

    Cox v. Hathaway, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Benjamin Cox filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his state conviction. 2) The district court denied relief and adopted the recommendation of the magistrate judge. 3) On appeal, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. It therefore denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    Cox v. Hathaway, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    9 views2 pages
    1) Benjamin Cox filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his state conviction. 2) The district court denied relief and adopted the recommendation of the magistrate judge. 3) On appeal, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. It therefore denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1996-12-12 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 96-7109

    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) Benjamin Cox filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his state conviction. 2) The district court denied relief and adopted the recommendation of the magistrate judge. 3) On appeal, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. It therefore denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

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

    Cox v. Hathaway, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Benjamin Cox filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his state conviction. 2) The district court denied relief and adopted the recommendation of the magistrate judge. 3) On appeal, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. It therefore denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    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. 96-7109

    BENJAMIN E. COX,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    ANTHONY HATHAWAY, III, Superintendent; FRANKLIN FREEMAN,
    Respondents - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District
    Judge. (CA-95-952-5-H)
    Submitted:

    November 21, 1996

    Decided:

    December 12, 1996

    Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.


    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Benjamin E. Cox, Appellant Pro Se. Sharon Coull Wilson, Associate
    Attorney General, Mark John Pletzke, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
    JUSTICE, 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 petition filed 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 appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Cox v. Hathaway, No. CA-95-952-5-H
    (E.D.N.C. July 11, 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