Filed: Feb. 26, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7730 JAMES EDWARD WINGFIELD, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GENE M. JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CA-01-484-AM) Submitted: February 20, 2003 Decided: February 26, 2003 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpubli
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7730 JAMES EDWARD WINGFIELD, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GENE M. JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CA-01-484-AM) Submitted: February 20, 2003 Decided: February 26, 2003 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublis..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7730 JAMES EDWARD WINGFIELD, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GENE M. JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CA-01-484-AM) Submitted: February 20, 2003 Decided: February 26, 2003 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Edward Wingfield, Appellant Pro Se. Amy L. Marshall, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: James Edward Wingfield 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 conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that Wingfield has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See Wingfield v. Johnson, No. CA-01-484-AM (E.D. Va. filed Sept. 24, 2002 & entered Sept. 25, 2002). Accordingly, we 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