Case Name: Nerion HAZELTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Charles M. Condon, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-12-18
Citations: 22 F. App'x 284
Docket Number: No. 01-7222
Parties: Nerion HAZELTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Charles M. Condon, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 22
Pages: 284–285

Head Matter:
Nerion HAZELTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Charles M. Condon, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 01-7222.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 30, 2001.
Decided Dec. 18, 2001.
Nerion Hazelton, Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Nerion Hazelton appeals the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.2001). We have reviewed the rec ord and the district court's 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. Hazelton v. South Carolina, No. CA-00-3930-19AJ (D.S.C. June 18, 2001). 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.
We note that the district court applied this court's decisions in Green v. French, 143 F.3d 865, 870 (4th Cir.1998), and Fitzgerald v. Greene, 150 F.3d 357, 362 (4th Cir.1998). We have analyzed the petition in light of the standards set forth by the Supreme Court in Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 412-13, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000). Applying Williams, we reach the same conclusion as did the district court: Hazelton is not entitled to habeas relief on any of his claims.