Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Goode v. Coffeewood Corr Cntr, 01-7784 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-7784 Visitors: 46
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Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7784 DAVID LEE GOODE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus COFFEEWOOD CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Respondent -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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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
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UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7784 DAVID LEE GOODE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus COFFEEWOOD CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Respondent -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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
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