Smith v. Beck

Fourth Circuit

Smith v. Beck

55 F. App'x 142

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided January 22, 2003·No. 02-7247·Unpublished·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Jimmy Cornell Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). We have reviewed the record and conclude on the reasoning of the district court that Smith has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See Smith v. Beck, No. CA-01-890-5-BO (E.D.N.C. July 26, 2002). Ac *143 cordingly, we deny a certificate of appeala-bility and dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). 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

PER CURIAM.

Jimmy Cornell Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). We have reviewed the record and conclude on the reasoning of the district court that Smith has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See Smith v. Beck, No. CA-01-890-5-BO (E.D.N.C. July 26, 2002). Ac *143 cordingly, we deny a certificate of appeala-bility and dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). 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.

Smith v. Beck, 55 F. App'x 142 (4th Cir. 2003).

Pincite

55 F. App'x 142 (Smith v. Beck) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related