935 F2d 268 Penland v. Allen Nc Penland

935 F.2d 268
Unpublished Disposition

George Edward PENLAND, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Sherrill ALLEN, Craggy Correctional Center, Asheville, NC,
Attorney General of North Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
George Edward PENLAND, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Roger HANIE, Parole Officer, Madison County, James L. Baker,
Assistant District Attorney, Madison County,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
E.Y. Ponder, Ex-Sheriff, Madison County, Defendant.

Nos. 91-6286, 91-6785.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 22, 1991.
Decided May 31, 1991.

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Woodrow Wilson Jones, Senior District Judge. (CA-90-2-A; CA-90-7-A-C)

George Edward Penland, Jr., appellant pro se.

Clarence J. DelForge, III, Office of the Attorney General, Ronna D. Gibbs, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, N.C., for appellees.

W.D.N.C.

NO. 91-6286 DISMISSED AND NO. 91-6785 AFFIRMED.

Before WIDENER, PHILLIPS and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

George Edward Penland, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's order refusing habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 in No. 91-6286. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Penland v. Allen, CA-90-2-A (W.D.N.C. Feb. 12, 1991).

2

Penland also appeals from the district court's order denying relief under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 in No. 91-6785. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is also without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment on the reasoning of the district court. Penland v. Hanie, CA-90-7-A-C (W.D.N.C. Feb. 5, 1991).

3

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.

4

No. 91-6286, DISMISSED.

5

No. 91-6785, AFFIRMED.