825 F.2d 408Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishingres judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requiresservice of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the FourthCircuit.Walter L. O'QUINN, Petitioner-Appellant,v.Jim G. BULLOCK, Superintendent; Attorney General of NorthCarolina, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 87-7507
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
August June 4, 1987. Decided July 24, 1987.
Ronnie Monroe Mitchell (William Trent Fox, Jr., on brief), for appellant.Richard Norwood League, Special Deputy Attorney General (Lacy H.Thornburg, Attorney General, on brief), for appellees.Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and SMALKIN,United States District Judge for the District of Maryland, sitting bydesignation.PER CURIAM:1Walter L. 'Wolf' O'Quinn, a state inmate in North Carolina, filed a petition infederal district court for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. Sec.2254 (West 1977). The court, upon motion of respondents, dismissed the petition after concluding that 'petitioner's constitutional right to a fair andimpartial trial was not violated.' O'Quinn appeals that order. We affirm.O'uinn was indicted tried and found uilt of maimin without malice in
[D]uring the course of the struggle, the Petitioner, knowing that Lee had a reputationfor going about armed and having felt a pistol on Lee's person, took Lee's ear between his teeth in a gesture of self-defense. O'Quinn's intent in so doing was torestrict Lee's motion so that Lee could not pull the gun. Lee attempted to jerk his ear out of O'Quinn's mouth and as a result, Lee's ear was severed from his head. violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. Sec. 14-29. The 'maiming' occurred when he bit off the ear of P. D. 'Lizard' Lee during a fracas at the Blue Marble Lounge. Onappeal, Appellant's account of the event is as follows:34Brief of Appellant, at 1-2.5Appellant contends that various remarks and questions interjected by the trial judge prejudiced him in the eyes of the jury. On direct appeal from hisconviction, the North Carolina Court of Appeals found otherwise. State v.O'Quinn, 76 N.C. App. 682, 338 S.E.2d 624 (1985), discretionary reviewdenied, 315 N.C. 394, 338 S.E.2d 884 (1986). Collateral proceedings in bothstate and federal courts have likewise failed to establish error sufficient towarrant reversal of his conviction. Our review of the conduct of the trial judgesatisfies us that the comments, when read in context, do not rise to a levelsufficient to warrant reversal. Cf. Anderson v. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary,696 F.2d 296, 299-301 (4th Cir. 1982) (trial judge's remarks could only haveled jurors to believe testimony of witnesses was false and contrived). Other contentions of Appellant are equally without merit.6AFFIRMED.