Filed: Oct. 17, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6458 GERALD B. THOMAS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIR- GINIA; GEORGE DEEDS, Warden, Red Onion State Prison, Respondents - Appellees, and JOHN DOE, Respondent. On Remand from the United States Supreme Court (S. Ct. No. 99-6862) Submitted: June 17, 1999 Decided: June 25, 1999 Decided on Remand: October 17, 2000 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublis
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6458 GERALD B. THOMAS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIR- GINIA; GEORGE DEEDS, Warden, Red Onion State Prison, Respondents - Appellees, and JOHN DOE, Respondent. On Remand from the United States Supreme Court (S. Ct. No. 99-6862) Submitted: June 17, 1999 Decided: June 25, 1999 Decided on Remand: October 17, 2000 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublish..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-6458
GERALD B. THOMAS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIR-
GINIA; GEORGE DEEDS, Warden, Red Onion State
Prison,
Respondents - Appellees,
and
JOHN DOE,
Respondent.
On Remand from the United States Supreme Court
(S. Ct. No. 99-6862)
Submitted: June 17, 1999 Decided: June 25, 1999
Decided on Remand: October 17, 2000
Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John Patrick McGeehan, George Andrew Hawkins, MCGEEHAN & ASSO-
CIATES, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellant. Steven Andrew Witmer,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
This case appears before this court for the second time
pursuant to the order of the Supreme Court of the United States
vacating our prior judgment and remanding for further consideration
in light of the Court’s decision in Williams v. Taylor,
120 S. Ct.
1495 (2000). We now find that, although in denying relief under 28
U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000), the district court
applied the “reasonable jurists” standard of Green v. French,
143
F.3d 865, 870 (4th Cir. 1998), cert. denied,
525 U.S. 1090 (1999),
which was subsequently rejected by the Supreme Court, see Williams,
120 S. Ct. at 1522, the denial of relief nevertheless was correct
under the standards announced in Williams. See id. at 1523. Con-
sequently, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
appeal. 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.
DISMISSED
2