Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Moore v. Liller, 4th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views2 pages
    1) Tammy Lynn Moore, also known as Tammy Lynn Scott-Smith, appealed the district court's denial of her petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 and denial of her post-judgment motions. 2) The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's judgment accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation. 3) The Fourth Circuit denied Moore's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the reasoning of the district court that denied Moore's petition and post-judgment motions.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1998-04-30 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 97-7480

    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) Tammy Lynn Moore, also known as Tammy Lynn Scott-Smith, appealed the district court's denial of her petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 and denial of her post-judgment motions. 2) The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's judgment accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation. 3) The Fourth Circuit denied Moore's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the reasoning of the district court that denied Moore's petition and post-judgment motions.

    Copyright:

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

    Moore v. Liller, 4th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Tammy Lynn Moore, also known as Tammy Lynn Scott-Smith, appealed the district court's denial of her petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 and denial of her post-judgment motions. 2) The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's judgment accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation. 3) The Fourth Circuit denied Moore's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the reasoning of the district court that denied Moore's petition and post-judgment motions.

    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. 97-7480

    TAMMY LYNN MOORE, a/k/a Tammy Lynn ScottSmith,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    JAMES N. LILLER, Warden,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II, Chief
    District Judge. (CA-97-368)
    Submitted:

    March 17, 1998

    Decided:

    April 30, 1998

    Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior


    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Tammy Lynn Moore, Appellant Pro Se. Scott E. Johnson, OFFICE OF
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia,
    for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Appelant seeks to appeal the district court's judgment ordersl
    denying relief on her petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. 2254 (West
    1994 & Supp. 1997), and her post-judgment motions filed under Fed.
    R. Civ. P. 59(e) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). We have reviewed the
    record and the district court's judgment order 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. Moore v. Liller, No.
    CA-97-368 (S.D.W. Va. Sept. 3 & Sept. 16, 1997). 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