The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
01-7703•William M. Huggins v. Bonnie Boyette
01-7703Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitJan 9, 2002
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-7703
WILLIAM M. HUGGINS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
BONNIE BOYETTE,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Statesville. Graham C. Mullen, Chief
District Judge. (CA-01-73-1-5-MU)
Submitted: December 20, 2001 Decided: January 9, 2002
Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William M. Huggins, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
William Huggins seeks to appeal the district court’s orders
denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West
1994 & Supp. 2001) and his motion for reconsideration. We have
reviewed the record and the district court’s orders and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appeal-
ability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district
court. See Huggins v. Boyette, No. CA-01-73-1-5-MU (W.D.N.C., Aug.
20, 2001, & Sept. 13, 2001). We also deny Huggins’ motion to dis-
miss the indictment. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate-
rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.