Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Lawrence v. Young, 02-7290 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-7290 Visitors: 19
Filed: Nov. 26, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7290 MICHAEL ISIAH LAWRENCE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus S. K. YOUNG, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-02-27-7) Submitted: October 24, 2002 Decided: November 26, 2002 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Isiah Lawrence, Appellant
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7290 MICHAEL ISIAH LAWRENCE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus S. K. YOUNG, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-02-27-7) Submitted: October 24, 2002 Decided: November 26, 2002 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Isiah Lawrence, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Drummond Bagwell, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Michael Isiah Lawrence seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that Lawrence has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See Lawrence v. Young, No. CA-02-27-7 (W.D. Va. filed July 31, 2002; entered Aug. 1, 2002). Accordingly, we deny Lawrence’s motions to vacate the district court’s order and to expand the record, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). 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
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