Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Ford v. Johnson, 04-7853 (2005)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 04-7853 Visitors: 9
Filed: Mar. 24, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7853 DANIEL RICHARD FORD, III, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GENE M. JOHNSON, Director, Virginia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-02-1623-1) Submitted: March 9, 2005 Decided: March 24, 2005 Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7853 DANIEL RICHARD FORD, III, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GENE M. JOHNSON, Director, Virginia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-02-1623-1) Submitted: March 9, 2005 Decided: March 24, 2005 Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Barbara Lynn Hartung, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Donald Eldridge Jeffrey, III, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Daniel Richard Ford, III seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude on the reasoning of the district court that Ford has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See Ford v. Johnson, No. CA-02-1623-1 (E.D. Va. Oct. 14, 2004). 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 -
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