Court Opinion

ID: 1005535
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 18:57:57.662619+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:03:38.945956
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                               No. 00-6452

JASPER NAPOLEON BUCHANAN,

                                                Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
SOUTH CAROLINA,

                                               Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior District
Judge. (CA-99-1797-0-8BD)

Submitted:   October 4, 2001                 Decided:   October 11, 2001

Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jasper Napoleon Buchanan, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka,
Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Jasper Napoleon Buchanan seeks to appeal 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 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 appealability and dismiss the appeal on the

reasoning of the district court.       See Buchanan v. South Carolina,

No. CA-99-1797-0-8BD (D.S.C. filed Mar. 17, 2000; entered Mar. 20,

2000); see also Crawley v. Catoe, 257 F.3d 395 (4th Cir. 2001).*

We deny Buchanan’s “motion for procedure of default.”       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

     *
      This appeal was placed in abeyance for No. 00-6817, Atkinson
v. Angelone.

                                   2