Filed: Dec. 24, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7684 RAYMOND V. BETHEL, JR., Petitioner – Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH OF VA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:13-cv-00013-HEH) Submitted: December 19, 2013 Decided: December 24, 2013 Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Raymond V. Bethel, Jr., Appell
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7684 RAYMOND V. BETHEL, JR., Petitioner – Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH OF VA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:13-cv-00013-HEH) Submitted: December 19, 2013 Decided: December 24, 2013 Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Raymond V. Bethel, Jr., Appella..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7684
RAYMOND V. BETHEL, JR.,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF VA,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:13-cv-00013-HEH)
Submitted: December 19, 2013 Decided: December 24, 2013
Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Raymond V. Bethel, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
For the second time, Raymond V. Bethel, Jr., seeks to
appeal the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice
his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition for failure to exhaust
state court remedies. As our previous decision in No. 13-7615
dismissed Bethel’s appeal from the same order and judgment, we
dismiss the present appeal as duplicative. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2