Notice: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 States that Citation of Unpublished Dispositions is Disfavored Except for Establishing Res Judicata, Estoppel, or the Law of the Case and Requires Service of Copies of Cited Unpublished Dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Albert Charles Burgess, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Parker Evatt, State of South Carolina, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees. Albert Charles Burgess, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Parker Evatt, State of South Carolina, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees., 929 F.2d 691 (4th Cir. 1991)

Federal Circuits, 4th Cir. (April 03, 1991)

Docket number: 90-6864,90-6885
Permanent Link: http://vlex.com/vid/37359152
Id. vLex: VLEX-37359152

Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)

Search in this document

Sponsored Ads:


Text:

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joe F. Anderson, Jr.; Karen L. Henderson, District Judges. (CA-88-2828)

Albert Charles Burgess, Jr., appellant pro se.

Frank Louis Valenta, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, S.C., for appellees.

D.S.C.

No. 90-6864 DISMISSED; No. 90-6885 AFFIRMED.

Before K.K. HALL, PHILLIPS and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Albert Charles Burgess, Jr. seeks to appeal the district court's order refusing habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec . 2254 in No. 90-6864. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal, and dismiss the appeal in No. 90-6864 on the reasoning of the district court. Burgess v. Evatt, CA-88-2828 (D.S.C. July 16, 1990). Further, we affirm the district court's order denying release on bail pending appeal in No. 90-6885. We deny Burgess's motion for release on bail pending appeal as moot. 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.1

No. 90-6864, DISMISSED.

No. 90-6885, AFFIRMED.

1 We grant Burgess's motion for expedited review to the extent that the appeal was handled as quickly as possible given the Court's caseload

Other documents:
39 CFR 962.14 Enforcement of subpoenas. | bruce v manchester & amp keene r co. 117 u.s 514 1886 | 48 CFR 750.7110-1 Investigation. | Unpublished Disposition Notice: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(C) States that Citation of Unpublished Dispo... | case of tribunal superior de justicia - bilbao, pais vasco - sala de lo social, of february 16, 1999 | Case of Audiencia Provincial Valencia Seccion 8 n 37/2006 of January 27 2006 | Solbes afirma que la golden share plantea problemas legales aunque la aprobara é... | CONVOCATORIA y bases para la provision, mediante el procedimiento de Conc... | Case of Tribunal Superior de Justicia Oviedo Asturias Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo of November 14 2000 | Commission Regulation (EC) No 2718/2000 of 13 December 2000 fixing the maxi... | anuncio del hospital nuestra senora de gracia por el que se publica la adjudicacion del contrato admin...