Heath v. Ginn

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-6095
FLOYD EDWARD HEATH,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
RUSSELL GINN,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 00-6096
PAUL EDWARD HEATH,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
RUSSELL GINN,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 00-7475
JEFFREY LYNN HEATH,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
RUSSELL GINN,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief Dis-
trict Judge, and Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-99-690-5-
BO, CA-99-691-5-BO, CA-99-692-5-H)
Submitted: February 9, 2001 Decided: February 22, 2001
Before WIDENER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Nos. 00-6095 and 00-6096 affirmed and No. 00-7475 dismissed by
unpublished per curiam opinion.
W. Gregory Duke, BLOUNT & DUKE, Greenville, North Carolina for
Appellants. Michael F. Easley, Attorney General, Clarence Joe
DelForge, III, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
Petitioners Paul Edward Heath, Jeffrey Lynn Heath, and Floyd
Edward Heath appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on
their 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000) petitions.
Jeffrey Heath’s petition was denied as untimely, while Paul Heath
and Floyd Heath’s petitions were summarily dismissed on the merits.
It appears that all three petitions were untimely filed. 28
U.S.C.A. § 2244(d) (West Supp. 2000). Moreover, the double jeop-
ardy claims raised by the Heaths are squarely foreclosed by this
court’s recent holding in Vick v. Williams, 233 F.3d 213 (4th Cir.
2000).
Accordingly, with regard to Jeffrey Lynn Heath we deny a cer-
tificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. With regard to
Paul Edward and Floyd Edward Heath, we affirm the district court’s
orders dismissing their petitions. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in
the materials before the court and oral argument would not aid the
decisional process.
No. 00-6095 - AFFIRMED
No. 00-6096 - AFFIRMED
No. 00-7475 - DISMISSED
3