Tron Manuel Littlejohn v. CECILIA R. REYNOLDS, Warden

10-7420Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit23 de mai. de 2011

Abrir fonte

Texto completo

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-7420
TRON MANUEL LITTLEJOHN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
CECILIA R. REYNOLDS, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Aiken. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(1:09-cv-01718-TLW)
Submitted: April 26, 2011 Decided: May 23, 2011
Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Tron Manuel Littlejohn, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka,
Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Samuel Creighton Waters,
Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Tron Manuel Littlejohn appeals the district court’s
order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition.∗
AFFIRMED
On
appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the
informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Littlejohn’s
informal brief does not challenge the bases for the district
court’s dismissal of twenty-one of his claims, Littlejohn has
forfeited appellate review of those claims. With regard to
Littlejohn’s claim that counsel rendered ineffective assistance
by failing to object to an in-court identification (the only
claim properly before the court), Littlejohn fails to show any
error in the district court’s denial of relief. Accordingly, we
affirm that claim for the reasons stated by the district court.
Littlejohn v. Reynolds, No. 1:09-cv-01718-TLW (D.S.C. Sept. 16,
2010). We deny Littlejohn’s motion for a transcript at
government expense and 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.
∗ We note that the district court granted certificate of
appealability pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006).

-- 2 of 2 --

Continue sua pesquisa no ChatGPT ou Claude

Conecte o Omnilex para pesquisar o corpus jurídico pelo seu assistente de IA.