Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Jones v. Deeds, 99-7436 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 99-7436 Visitors: 22
Filed: Dec. 22, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7436 BENJAMIN HENDERSON JONES, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GEORGE DEEDS, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-99-705-7) Submitted: December 16, 1999 Decided: December 22, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Benja
More
                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 99-7436



BENJAMIN HENDERSON JONES,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


GEORGE DEEDS,

                                              Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Roanoke.    James C. Turk, District Judge.
(CA-99-705-7)


Submitted:   December 16, 1999         Decided:     December 22, 1999


Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Cir-
cuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Benjamin Henderson Jones, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

     Benjamin Henderson Jones, a Virginia inmate, appeals from the

district court's order dismissing his petition filed under 28

U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1999).   The district court dis-

missed the petition without prejudice because Jones failed to dem-

onstrate that he had exhausted his available state court remedies.

Because the instant petition is Jones' second § 2254 petition, see

Jones v. Angelone, 
94 F.3d 900
 (4th Cir. 1996),    Jones must seek

authorization from this court before filing a second or successive

§ 2254 petition.   See 28 U.S.C.A. § 2244 (West Supp. 1999).    We

therefore deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the ap-

peal on that ground.   We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate-

rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.




                                                         DISMISSED




                                2

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer