Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Weathers v. Moore, 4th Cir. (1997)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    0 views2 pages
    Frank Weathers filed a petition under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 seeking relief from his conviction. The district court adopted the magistrate's recommendation to deny relief on the petition. Weathers then filed a motion to reconsider, which the district court construed as a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59(e) and denied. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error. Accordingly, the appeals court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the reasoning of the district court.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1997-10-10 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 97-6919

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Frank Weathers filed a petition under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 seeking relief from his conviction. The district court adopted the magistrate's recommendation to deny relief on the petition. Weathers then filed a motion to reconsider, which the district court construed as a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59(e) and denied. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error. Accordingly, the appeals court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the reasoning of the district court.

    Copyright:

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

    Weathers v. Moore, 4th Cir. (1997)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Frank Weathers filed a petition under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 seeking relief from his conviction. The district court adopted the magistrate's recommendation to deny relief on the petition. Weathers then filed a motion to reconsider, which the district court construed as a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59(e) and denied. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error. Accordingly, the appeals court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the reasoning of the district court.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 97-6919

    FRANK WEATHERS, JR.,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    MICHAEL MOORE, Director of the 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 Columbia. David C. Norton, District Judge.
    (CA-96-3720-18BC)
    Submitted:

    September 25, 1997

    Decided:

    October 10, 1997

    Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.


    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Frank Weathers, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Frank Weathers seeks to appeal a district court order adopting
    a magistrate judges recommendation to deny relief on his petition
    filed under 28 U.S.C.A. 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997), and a subsequent order denying relief on Weather's "Motion to Reconsider,"
    broadly construed as a motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant
    to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
    we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on
    the reasoning of the district court. Weathers v. Moore, No. CA-963720-18BC (D.S.C. May 9 and June 3, 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