Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

103 F.3d 119

Docket No. 96-6572.

Pearson v. State

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals

Submitted Nov. 21, 1996. Decided Dec. 3, 1996.

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1996-12-03

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Prescott v. Hall

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1996-12-03

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Richard N. Pearson, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

E.D.N.C.

DISMISSED.

Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

¶1

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court'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 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. Pearson v. North Carolina, No. CA-94-896-5-F (E.D.N.C. Apr. 8, 1996). 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

/103/f3d/119 · .json · Public domain