Harrington v. Attorney General NC

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7654 JOHNNIE L. HARRINGTON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Sr., District Judge. (CA-94-687-1) Submitted: September 24, 1996 Decided: October 21, 1996 Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bruce Tracy Cunningham, Jr., CUNNINGHAM, DEDMOND, PETERSEN & SMITH, Southern Pines, North Carolina, for Appellant. 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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). PER CURIAM: Johnnie L. Harrington, a North Carolina prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his habeas corpus petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214, and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) mo- tion. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation and find no rever- sible error in the denial of § 2254 relief. Nor did we find an abuse of discretion in the court's denial of Harrington's Rule 59(e) motion. Accordingly, Harrington's argument that counsel rendered ineffective assistance does not merit issuance of a cer- tificate of probable cause. See Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983) (stating standards for granting certificates of probable cause). We therefore deny a certificate of probable cause and dis- miss the appeal. To the extent that a certificate of appealability is required, we deny such a certificate. 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 2