Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Robinson v. NC Attorney General, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing Restoney Robinson's appeal of a district court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation. As such, the Fourth Circuit denied Robinson a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its May 14, 1996 opinion.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1996-10-25 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 96-6914

    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    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing Restoney Robinson's appeal of a district court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation. As such, the Fourth Circuit denied Robinson a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its May 14, 1996 opinion.

    Copyright:

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

    Robinson v. NC Attorney General, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing Restoney Robinson's appeal of a district court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation. As such, the Fourth Circuit denied Robinson a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its May 14, 1996 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. 96-6914

    RESTONEY ROBINSON,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    NORTH CAROLINA ATTORNEY GENERAL; TOMMY LEE
    TINSLEY; WALTER JOHNSON; PAUL B. CALHOUN;
    HOWARD L. WOOTEN; W. PERRY MCNAIR; R. G.
    WAULER; CARRIE A. MOCK; PARRY H. LEARY,
    Respondents - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
    James A. Beaty, Jr.,
    District Judge. (CA-96-1)
    Submitted:

    October 17, 1996

    Decided:

    October 25, 1996

    Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior


    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Restoney Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III,
    OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, 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. Robinson v. Attorney General of North
    Carolina, No. CA-96-1 (M.D.N.C. May 14, 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