(CA-86-995-HC-BO) Edward A. Ganey, Jr v. David W. Chester

Filed: August 8, 2000
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-6741
(CA-86-995-HC-BO)
Edward A. Ganey, Jr.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
David W. Chester, et al.,
Respondents - Appellees.
O R D E R
The court amends its opinion filed July 25, 2000, as follows:
On the cover sheet, section 3, line 3 -- the district court
number is corrected to read “CA-86-995-HC-BO.”
For the Court - By Direction
/s/ Patricia S. Connor
Clerk

-- 1 of 3 --

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-6741
EDWARD A. GANEY, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
DAVID W. CHESTER; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH
CAROLINA,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief Dis-
trict Judge. (CA-86-995-HC-BO)
Submitted: July 13, 2000 Decided: July 25, 2000
Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Edward A. Ganey, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Edward A. Ganey, Jr., seeks to appeal three district court
orders. We conclude that the district court properly construed
Ganey’s motion attacking his conviction and sentence as a succes-
sive petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.
2000). Accordingly, the motion was properly denied as successive
because Ganey did not have authorization from this court to file a
successive § 2254 petition. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 2244 (West Supp.
2000). We also conclude that the court properly denied Ganey’s
motions seeking relief from the order denying his successive § 2254
petition, production of documents at government expense, and the
district court judge’s recusal. Accordingly, we deny a certificate
of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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

-- 3 of 3 --