
    Alfred F. WORLEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Tim O’DELL; Michael F. Easley, Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 00-6381.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 13, 2001.
    Decided March 15, 2001.
    
      Alfred F. Worley, pro se.
    Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Alfred F. Worley appeals the district court’s order denying his habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254(d)(1) (West 1994 & Supp. 2000). We vacate and remand for further proceedings.

Worley was convicted in 1991 of first degree burglary and felony larceny. He was sentenced to life plus ten years. The state superior court denied his motion for appropriate relief. The record contains neither the motion nor the superior court’s decision denying the motion. Worley then petitioned the North Carolina Court of Appeals for a writ of certiorari. The State opposed the petition. The Court of Appeals summarily denied certiorari.

Worley next filed the instant § 2254 petition, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and raising other claims. The district court, relying only upon the habeas petition, the State’s response to the motion for appropriate relief, the state court’s order denying certiorari, and “other submitted documents,” determined that it could not conclude that the state court’s “decision was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254(d)(1).

On the state of the record before us, it is impossible to determine whether the district court properly deferred to the superi- or court’s decision. In order to determine whether deference under § 2254(d)(1) was appropriate, the district court should have addressed the superior court’s decision itself. The documents currently in the record do not disclose the reasoning employed in denying Worley’s motion for appropriate relief. It is therefore necessary to vacate the decision of the district court and remand so that the court may examine the superior court’s decision and determine whether that court’s adjudication “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court....” 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254(d)(1).

We grant the motions for a certifícate of appealability and for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The motion for appointment of counsel is denied. 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.

VACATED AND REMANDED.  