Rogers v. McDade

Fourth Circuit

Rogers v. McDade

32 F. App'x 81

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedApril 3, 2002

Docket00-7823

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 32 F. App'x 81 (Rogers v. McDade) 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

Rogers v. McDade, 32 F. App'x 81 (4th Cir. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Jeffrey Dwayne Rogers seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Respondents and denying his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (West 1994) (current version at 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.2001)). We grant Respondents’ petition for rehearing but deny rehearing en banc. Upon our review, we find insufficient evidence that the State’s factfinding was deficient in some significant respect. See Fitzgerald v. Greene, 150 F.3d 357, 369 (4th Cir.1998). Accordingly, we affirm based on the reasoning of the district court. Rogers v. McDade, No. CA-96-15-4-MU (W.D.N.C. filed Nov. 27, 2000; entered Nov. 30, 2000); see North Carolina v. Rogers, File No. 93 CRS 7128, 7129 (Sup.Ct. Wilkes County June 12, 1995).

We note that the district court granted Rogers’ request for a certificate of appeal-ability. However, such a certificate is not necessary because this § 2254 petition was filed prior to the enactment of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub.L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. See Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 336, *82 117 S.Ct. 2059, 138 L.Ed.2d 481 (1997); Mueller v. Angelone, 181 F.3d 557, 565-66, (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 527 U.S. 1065, 120 S.Ct. 37, 144 L.Ed.2d 839 (1999). To the extent it is necessary, we grant a certificate of probable cause. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (1994). 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.

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

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Jeffrey Dwayne Rogers seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Respondents and denying his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (West 1994) (current version at 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.2001)). We grant Respondents’ petition for rehearing but deny rehearing en banc. Upon our review, we find insufficient evidence that the State’s factfinding was deficient in some significant respect. See Fitzgerald v. Greene, 150 F.3d 357, 369 (4th Cir.1998). Accordingly, we affirm based on the reasoning of the district court. Rogers v. McDade, No. CA-96-15-4-MU (W.D.N.C. filed Nov. 27, 2000; entered Nov. 30, 2000); see North Carolina v. Rogers, File No. 93 CRS 7128, 7129 (Sup.Ct. Wilkes County June 12, 1995).

We note that the district court granted Rogers’ request for a certificate of appeal-ability. However, such a certificate is not necessary because this § 2254 petition was filed prior to the enactment of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub.L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. See Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 336, *82 117 S.Ct. 2059, 138 L.Ed.2d 481 (1997); Mueller v. Angelone, 181 F.3d 557, 565-66, (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 527 U.S. 1065, 120 S.Ct. 37, 144 L.Ed.2d 839 (1999). To the extent it is necessary, we grant a certificate of probable cause. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (1994). 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 F. App'x 81, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rogers-v-mcdade-ca4-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack