Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Crooks v. Moore, 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views2 pages
    Thomas D. Crooks, Jr. filed a petition under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 claiming errors in his state criminal case and miscalculation of his work credits. The district court denied relief based on the recommendation of the magistrate judge. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error, denying a certificate of appealability and dismissing the appeal based on the district court's reasoning. The appeals court also held that Crooks failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right regarding his claim about miscalculated work credits.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1999-10-06 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 99-6631

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Thomas D. Crooks, Jr. filed a petition under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 claiming errors in his state criminal case and miscalculation of his work credits. The district court denied relief based on the recommendation of the magistrate judge. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error, denying a certificate of appealability and dismissing the appeal based on the district court's reasoning. The appeals court also held that Crooks failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right regarding his claim about miscalculated work credits.

    Copyright:

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

    Crooks v. Moore, 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Thomas D. Crooks, Jr. filed a petition under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 claiming errors in his state criminal case and miscalculation of his work credits. The district court denied relief based on the recommendation of the magistrate judge. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error, denying a certificate of appealability and dismissing the appeal based on the district court's reasoning. The appeals court also held that Crooks failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right regarding his claim about miscalculated work credits.

    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. 99-6631

    THOMAS D. CROOKS, JR.,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    MICHAEL MOORE, South Carolina Department of
    Corrections; NATHANIEL HUGHES, South Carolina
    Department of Corrections; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; 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. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District
    Judge. (CA-98-2456-2-17AJ)

    Submitted:

    September 30, 1999

    Decided:

    October 6, 1999

    Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Thomas D. Crooks, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Larry C. Batson, Sr.,
    Lesli Brown Darwin, SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
    Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Thomas D. Crooks, Jr., appeals the district courts order
    denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. 2254 (West
    1994 & Supp. 1999).

    We have reviewed the record and the district

    courts opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate


    judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal substantially on the
    reasoning of the district court.

    See Crooks v. Moore, No. CA-98-

    2456-2-17AJ (D.S.C. Apr. 26, 1999).

    In addition, with regard to

    Crooks claim that his work credits have been miscalculated, we


    hold that Crooks has failed to make a substantial showing of the
    denial of a consitutional right.
    Supp. 1999).

    See 28 U.S.C.A. 2253(c) (West

    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