Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Lovette v. Beck, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    26 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Robert Lovette's appeal of the district court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief. The appeals court reviewed the record and agreed with the district court's conclusion that Lovette did not make a substantial showing that his constitutional rights were denied. The appeals court also denied Lovette's request for appointment of counsel and dispensed with oral arguments, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the written materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2002-09-12 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 02-6569

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Robert Lovette's appeal of the district court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief. The appeals court reviewed the record and agreed with the district court's conclusion that Lovette did not make a substantial showing that his constitutional rights were denied. The appeals court also denied Lovette's request for appointment of counsel and dispensed with oral arguments, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the written materials.

    Copyright:

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

    Lovette v. Beck, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Robert Lovette's appeal of the district court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief. The appeals court reviewed the record and agreed with the district court's conclusion that Lovette did not make a substantial showing that his constitutional rights were denied. The appeals court also denied Lovette's request for appointment of counsel and dispensed with oral arguments, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the written materials.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 02-6569

    ROBERT VERNON LOVETTE,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    THEODIS
    BECK,
    Secretary,
    Department of Corrections,

    North

    Carolina
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District


    District of North Carolina, at Durham.
    District Judge. (CA-01-1000-1)

    Submitted:

    August 29, 2002

    Court for the Middle


    James A. Beaty, Jr.,

    Decided:

    September 12, 2002

    Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit
    Judge.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Robert Vernon Lovette, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge,
    III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh,
    North Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Robert Vernon Lovette appeals the district courts order
    denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. 2254 (2000).
    We have reviewed the record and the district courts opinion
    accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and conclude
    that Lovette has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a
    constitutional right.*

    See Lovette v. Beck, No. CA-01-1000-1

    (M.D.N.C. March 25, 2002).

    Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

    appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Lovettes motion for


    appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the
    facts

    and

    materials

    legal
    before

    contentions
    the

    court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    presented

    would

    not

    in

    the

    aid

    the

    decisional process.

    DISMISSED

    We reach this conclusion assuming, without deciding, that


    Lovettes petition was timely under the one-year limitations period
    of the AEDPA. See 28 U.S.C. 2244.
    2

    You might also like