Court Opinion

ID: 990249
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-03 23:18:19.281451+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:34:43.906434
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 95-8582

ELLIS HARVEY MARSEY,

                                            Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

JEB S. CREWS, Unit Supervisor,

                                             Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Chief District
Judge. (CA-95-518-5-HC-F)

Submitted:   August 15, 1996              Decided:   August 20, 1996

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

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ellis Harvey Marsey, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

     Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

relief on his habeas corpus petition, 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988), as
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 accepting the recommendation of

the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal; to the extent that

such a certificate of appealability is required, we deny such a
certificate. We dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district
court. Marsey v. Crews, No. CA-95-518-5-HC-F (E.D.N.C. Dec. 7,

1995). We further deny Appellant's motions for the appointment of

counsel, to be heard as a pro se Appellant, and for relief from

violations of rights. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate-

rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

                                                         DISMISSED

                                2