Court Opinion

ID: 991904
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-03 23:43:33.966649+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:34:49.627197
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 96-7116

HAYWOOD ALLEN CANNON,

                                            Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,

                                             Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District
Judge. (CA-95-675-5-H)

Submitted:   March 27, 1997                 Decided:   April 2, 1997

Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Haywood Allen Cannon, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 orders denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994), amended
by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L.

No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214, and denying his motion for reconsid-

eration. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opin-

ion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find

no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appeal-

ability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district
court. Cannon v. North Carolina, No. CA-95-675-5-H (E.D.N.C. July

8, 1996 and May 14, 1996). We deny Appellant's motions for an order

enjoining state court Judge Duke from presiding over any cases

filed by Appellant and for copies of law clerks' memoranda to the
court concerning this appeal and Appellant's prior appeals. We also

deny Appellant's motions for appointment of counsel and for 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

                                 2