Filed: Aug. 08, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6735 SCOTT M. BOARD, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF VERMONT, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, District Judge. (CA-01-38-3) Submitted: July 26, 2001 Decided: August 8, 2001 Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Scott M. Board, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublis
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6735 SCOTT M. BOARD, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF VERMONT, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, District Judge. (CA-01-38-3) Submitted: July 26, 2001 Decided: August 8, 2001 Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Scott M. Board, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublish..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6735 SCOTT M. BOARD, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF VERMONT, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, District Judge. (CA-01-38-3) Submitted: July 26, 2001 Decided: August 8, 2001 Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Scott M. Board, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Scott M. Board appeals the district court’s order dismissing his § 2254 petition for lack of venue. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Board’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Board v. Vermont, No. CA-01-38-3 (E.D. Va. Mar. 20 & Apr. 24, 2001). 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. AFFIRMED 2
