Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Smith v. Smith, 4th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    12 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on a rehearing of a case. The court had initially dismissed the appeal as untimely but granted a rehearing to address the merits. Upon reviewing the district court's decision, the appeals court found no reversible error in the district court's dismissal without prejudice of the appellant's second habeas corpus petition for failure to obtain authorization as required by law. The appeals court therefore denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the reasoning of the district court.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1998-05-27 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 97-7301

    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    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on a rehearing of a case. The court had initially dismissed the appeal as untimely but granted a rehearing to address the merits. Upon reviewing the district court's decision, the appeals court found no reversible error in the district court's dismissal without prejudice of the appellant's second habeas corpus petition for failure to obtain authorization as required by law. The appeals court therefore 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
    12 views2 pages

    Smith v. Smith, 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    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on a rehearing of a case. The court had initially dismissed the appeal as untimely but granted a rehearing to address the merits. Upon reviewing the district court's decision, the appeals court found no reversible error in the district court's dismissal without prejudice of the appellant's second habeas corpus petition for failure to obtain authorization as required by law. The appeals court therefore 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

    Opinion on Rehearing

    UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 97-7301

    EDDIE JAMES SMITH,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    ARNOLD SMITH; SHELLY SVEDA; OFFICER LONG;
    JEFFREY LEIN; CLATTY OFFICER; ANDRE TYSON;
    WILLIAM R. SHELL,
    Respondents - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District
    Judge. (CA-97-453-5-H)
    Submitted:

    February 27, 1998

    Decided:

    May 27, 1998

    Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.


    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Eddie James Smith, Appellant Pro Se.
    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 dismissing without prejudice his second 28 U.S.C.A. 2254 (West 1994 &
    Supp. 1997) petition for failure to obtain authorization pursuant
    to 28 U.S.C.A. 2244 (West Supp. 1997). Initially, this court
    dismissed the appeal as untimely. We now grant Appellant's petition
    for rehearing and address the case on the merits. 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. Smith v.
    Smith, No. CA-97-453-5-H (E.D.N.C. July 11, 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