Court Opinion

ID: 997846
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:02:46.722444+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:43:48.228713
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

WAYNE EUGENE ALEXANDER,
Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA JUSTICE
                                                                   No. 97-7407
COMMITTEE; ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF THE STATE OF SOUTH
CAROLINA,
Respondents-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia.
Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge.
(CA-96-3378-3-22-BC)

Submitted: May 19, 1998

Decided: February 18, 1999

Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Wayne Eugene Alexander, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Wayne Eugene Alexander appeals the district court's order adopt-
ing the report and recommendation of a magistrate judge and denying
relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &
Supp. 1998). In a separate order, the court also granted a certificate
of probable cause to appeal as to one issue--claim (2) below--and
denied it as to all other issues. We construe this order as a grant of
a certificate of appealability and affirm as to the certified issue. As to
the remaining issues, we deny a certificate of appealability and dis-
miss.

Alexander's petition alleges that his attorney was constitutionally
deficient in three respects: (1) he failed to object to the trial court's
instruction on malice; (2) he failed to object to the trial court's Allen*
charge; and (3) he failed to object to errors committed by the trial
judge, thereby waiving appellate review. We have reviewed the
record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation
of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error.

We therefore affirm the court's order denying § 2254 relief on
claim (2), and deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss as to
claims (1) and (3) on the reasoning of the district court. Alexander v.
South Carolina Justice Committee, No. CA-96-3378-3-22-BC (D.S.C.
Aug. 29, 1997). 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.

AFFIRMED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART
_________________________________________________________________

*Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492 (1896).

                     2