Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Ronnie Lee Jones v. Fred Greene, Warden, Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia, 91-6059 (1991)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 91-6059 Visitors: 56
Filed: Jun. 19, 1991
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 935 F.2d 1286 Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Ronnie Lee JONES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Fred GREENE, Warden, Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Respondents-Appellees. No. 91-6059. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitt
More

935 F.2d 1286
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Ronnie Lee JONES, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Fred GREENE, Warden, Attorney General of the Commonwealth of
Virginia, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 91-6059.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted June 3, 1991.
Decided June 19, 1991.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-91-45)

Ronnie Lee Jones, appellant pro se.

Robert B. Condon, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Va., for appellees.

E.D.Va.

DISMISSED.

Before WIDENER, MURNAGHAN and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Ronnie Lee Jones seeks to appeal the magistrate judge's order refusing habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254. Our review of the record and the magistrate judge's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the magistrate judge. Jones v. Greene, CA-91-45 (E.D.Va. Apr. 18, 1991). 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.

2

DISMISSED.

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