Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Drinkard v. Baskerville, 00-6704 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-6704 Visitors: 3
Filed: Sep. 11, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6704 ROBERT D. DRINKARD, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus ALTON BASKERVILLE, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CA-99-852-7) Submitted: August 29, 2000 Decided: September 11, 2000 Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6704 ROBERT D. DRINKARD, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus ALTON BASKERVILLE, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CA-99-852-7) Submitted: August 29, 2000 Decided: September 11, 2000 Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert D. Drinkard, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Donald Eldridge Jeffrey III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Vir- ginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Robert D. Drinkard, Jr. seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the dis- trict court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal sub- stantially on the reasoning of the district court.* See Drinkard v. Baskerville, No. CA-99-852-7 (W.D. Va. Apr. 27, 2000). We dis- pense 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. DISMISSED * Drinkard alleges that the district court should have ex- cluded two periods from its statute of limitations calculations. We hold that, even with the benefit of those periods, Drinkard’s petition was time-barred under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2244(d) (West Supp. 2000). 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