James Anthony Butler v. State of South Carolina T. Travis Medlock, the Attorney General of the State of South Carolina

73 F.3d 356, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 4155, 1996 WL 1183
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 2, 1996
Docket95-6637
StatusPublished

This text of 73 F.3d 356 (James Anthony Butler v. State of South Carolina T. Travis Medlock, the Attorney General of the State of South Carolina) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
James Anthony Butler v. State of South Carolina T. Travis Medlock, the Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, 73 F.3d 356, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 4155, 1996 WL 1183 (4th Cir. 1996).

Opinion

73 F.3d 356
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

James Anthony BUTLER, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
STATE of South Carolina; T. Travis Medlock, the Attorney
General of the State of South Carolina,
Respondents-Appellees.

No. 95-6637.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 14, 1995.
Decided Jan. 2, 1996.

James Anthony Butler, Appellant Pro Se.

Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 (1988) petition. 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 and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Butler v. State of South Carolina, No. CA-94-2466-6-21AK (D.S.C. Apr. 3, 1995). 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
73 F.3d 356, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 4155, 1996 WL 1183, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-anthony-butler-v-state-of-south-carolina-t-t-ca4-1996.