Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Caughman v. Bessinger, 4th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    8 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing Michael Caughman's appeal of the district court's denial of his petition for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 denial. The appeals court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal based on the reasoning of the district court decision. The court also denied Caughman's motion for appointment of counsel and dispensed with oral argument.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1998-05-26 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 97-6971

    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    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing Michael Caughman's appeal of the district court's denial of his petition for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 denial. The appeals court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal based on the reasoning of the district court decision. The court also denied Caughman's motion for appointment of counsel and dispensed with oral argument.

    Copyright:

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

    Caughman v. Bessinger, 4th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing Michael Caughman's appeal of the district court's denial of his petition for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 denial. The appeals court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal based on the reasoning of the district court decision. The court also denied Caughman's motion for appointment of counsel and dispensed with oral argument.

    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. 97-6971

    MICHAEL CAUGHMAN,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    LAURIE F.
    CONDON,

    BESSINGER,

    Warden;

    CHARLES

    M.

    Respondents - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Columbia.
    Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
    Judge. (CA-96-3644-3-20BC)
    Submitted:

    May 14, 1998

    Decided:

    May 26, 1998

    Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior


    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Michael Caughman, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief
    Deputy Attorney General, Lauri J. Soles, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
    GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia,
    South Carolina, for
    Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Michael Caughman seeks to appeal the district court's order
    denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. 2254 (West
    1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district
    court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny
    a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Caughman v. Bessinger, No. CA-963644-3-20BC (D.S.C. June 26, 1997). We also deny Caughman's motion
    for appointment of counsel. 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