Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Shell v. Bessinger, 4th Cir. (1997)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing Alphonso Shell's appeal of the district court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court record and found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation to deny Shell's petition. Therefore, the Fourth Circuit denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed Shell's appeal based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its July 29, 1996 order.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1997-05-07 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 96-7416

    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    This document is an unpublished order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing Alphonso Shell's appeal of the district court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court record and found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation to deny Shell's petition. Therefore, the Fourth Circuit denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed Shell's appeal based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its July 29, 1996 order.

    Copyright:

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

    Shell v. Bessinger, 4th Cir. (1997)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing Alphonso Shell's appeal of the district court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court record and found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation to deny Shell's petition. Therefore, the Fourth Circuit denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed Shell's appeal based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its July 29, 1996 order.

    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. 96-7416

    ALPHONSO SHELL, a/k/a Kevin Sears,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    LAURIE F. BESSINGER, Warden, Kirkland Correctional Institution; CHARLES MOLONY 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 Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.
    (CA-96-147-2-18AJ)
    Submitted:

    May 1, 1997

    Decided:

    May 7, 1997

    Before WIDENER and MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior


    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Alphonso Shell, Appellant Pro Se.
    Donald John Zelenka, Chief
    Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South 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.A. 2254 (West 1994 &
    Supp. 1997). 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. Shell v. Bessinger, No. CA-96-147-2-18AJ (D.S.C. July 29,
    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