Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from James McCoy Harris of the denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the magistrate judge's decision. As such, the court denied a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the reasoning of the lower court. It also denied Harris' motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dispensed with oral arguments.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1996-12-18 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 96-6654

    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    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from James McCoy Harris of the denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the magistrate judge's decision. As such, the court denied a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the reasoning of the lower court. It also denied Harris' motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dispensed with oral arguments.

    Copyright:

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

    Harris 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    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from James McCoy Harris of the denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the magistrate judge's decision. As such, the court denied a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the reasoning of the lower court. It also denied Harris' motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dispensed with oral arguments.

    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. 96-6654

    JAMES MCCOY HARRIS,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    NORTH CAROLINA
    MARTIN,

    ATTORNEY

    GENERAL;

    TOM

    C.

    Respondents - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Salisbury. Paul Trevor Sharp, Magistrate Judge. (CA-95-759-1)
    Submitted:

    December 12, 1996

    Decided:

    December 18, 1996

    Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.


    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    James McCoy Harris, 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 magistrate judge'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
    magistrate judge's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal; to the
    extent a certificate of appealability is required, we deny such
    certificate. We dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the magistrate judge. Harris v. North Carolina Attorney General, No. CA-95759-1 (M.D.N.C. Mar. 22, 1996). We also deny Appellant's motion to
    proceed in forma pauperis. 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

    The parties consented to disposition by a magistrate judge


    pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c) (1994).
    2

    You might also like