Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

105 F.3d 648

Docket Nos. 96-7440, 96-7533.

Phillip M. Propst v. State of North Carolina, Phillip M. Propst v. State of North Carolina

Full caption · 2 consolidated cases

  • Phillip M. PROPST, Petitioner--v.STATE of North Carolina, Respondent--Appellee. Phillip M
  • PROPST, Petitioner--v.STATE of North Carolina, Respondent--

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals

Submited Dec. 19, 1996. Decided Jan. 6, 1997.

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1997-01-06

Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently January 1997 · most notably United States v. Arnulfo D. Benavides, A/K/A Arnold (1997), Heidi Sonnichsen v. Sears, Roebuck and Company (1997)

31 federal appellate ·

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

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1997-01-06

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Graham C. Mullen, District Judge. (CA-95-151-5-MU)

Phillip M. Propst, Appellant Pro Se.

W.D.N.C.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

¶1

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his habeas corpus petition, 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub.L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214, and his motion for reconsideration. 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 appeals on the reasoning of the district court. Propst v. North Carolina, No. CA-95-151-5-MU (W.D.N.C. Aug. 22, 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

/105/f3d/648 · .json · Public domain