Filed: Mar. 20, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7784 DAVID LEE GOODE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus COFFEEWOOD CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CA-00-675-7) Submitted: March 13, 2002 Decided: March 20, 2002 Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. D
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7784 DAVID LEE GOODE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus COFFEEWOOD CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CA-00-675-7) Submitted: March 13, 2002 Decided: March 20, 2002 Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Da..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7784 DAVID LEE GOODE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus COFFEEWOOD CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CA-00-675-7) Submitted: March 13, 2002 Decided: March 20, 2002 Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Lee Goode, Appellant Pro Se. Hazel Elizabeth Shaffer, Assis- tant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: David Lee Goode appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a cer- tificate of appealability, deny Goode’s motion for appointment of counsel, and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Goode v. Coffeewood Corr. Ctr., No. CA-00-675-7 (W.D. Va. Sept. 28, 2001). 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