Court Opinion

ID: 1003097
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 18:21:06.511733+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:47:23.224893
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 00-6900

ROBERT LEON KEITH,

                                             Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,

                                            Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge.
(CA-99-808-9-19RB)

Submitted:   November 30, 2000            Decided:   December 6, 2000

Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Leon Keith, Appellant Pro Se. Derrick K. McFarland, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Caro-
lina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Robert Leon Keith seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West

1994 & Supp. 2000).   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 cer-

tificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning

of the district court.   Keith v. South Carolina, No. CA-99-808-9-

19RB (D.S.C. June 9, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma-

terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

                                                         DISMISSED

     *
       Although the district court relied in part upon Green v.
French, 143 F.3d 865 (4th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1090
(1999), in denying Keith’s § 2254 petition, the denial of relief
also was correct under the standards announced in Williams v.
Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000).

                                 2