Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 8 views

    Fountain v. Bell, 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    James Fountain filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his conviction. The district court dismissed the petition as untimely. Fountain filed a motion for reconsideration which was also denied. Fountain appealed. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the case and found no abuse of discretion by the district court. The court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal without oral argument.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    Fountain v. Bell, 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    8 views2 pages
    James Fountain filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his conviction. The district court dismissed the petition as untimely. Fountain filed a motion for reconsideration which was also denied. Fountain appealed. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the case and found no abuse of discretion by the district court. The court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal without oral argument.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1999-04-19 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 99-6177

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    James Fountain filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his conviction. The district court dismissed the petition as untimely. Fountain filed a motion for reconsideration which was also denied. Fountain appealed. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the case and found no abuse of discretion by the district court. The court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal without oral argument.

    Copyright:

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

    Fountain v. Bell, 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    James Fountain filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his conviction. The district court dismissed the petition as untimely. Fountain filed a motion for reconsideration which was also denied. Fountain appealed. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the case and found no abuse of discretion by the district court. The court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal without oral argument.

    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. 99-6177

    JAMES FOUNTAIN,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    WILLIAM BELL,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge.
    (CA-98-836-5-HC-F-3)

    Submitted:

    March 31, 1999

    Decided:

    April 19, 1999

    Before ERVIN, HAMILTON, and KING, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    James Fountain, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    James Fountain appeals the district courts order denying his
    motion for reconsideration of the courts order dismissing as
    untimely his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. 2254 (West 1994 &
    Supp. 1998).

    We have reviewed the record and the district courts

    opinion and find no abuse of discretion.

    Accordingly, we deny a

    certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

    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