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,ande.y. Ponder, Ex-sheriff, Madison County, Defendant, 935 F.2d 268 (4th Cir. 1991)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit - 935 F.2d 268 (4th Cir. 1991) Submitted April 22, 1991. Decided May 31, 1991

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:


George Edward Penland, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's order refusing habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 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).

Penland also appeals from the district court's order denying relief under 42 U.S.C. § 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).

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.

No. 91-6286, DISMISSED.

No. 91-6785, AFFIRMED.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.