Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Anthony Crowell v. Edward W. Murray, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, 92-6330 (1992)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 92-6330 Visitors: 36
Filed: Aug. 31, 1992
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 974 F.2d 1330 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Anthony CROWELL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Edward W. MURRAY, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee. No. 92-6330. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted: June 12, 1992 Decided: August
More

974 F.2d 1330

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Anthony CROWELL, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Edward W. MURRAY, Director, Virginia Department of
Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 92-6330.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 12, 1992
Decided: August 31, 1992

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. John A. MacKenzie, Senior District Judge. (CA-91-646-N)

Anthony Crowell, Appellant Pro Se.

Robert Harkness Herring, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

E.D.Va.

Dismissed.

Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

1

Anthony Crowell seeks to appeal the district court's orders refusing habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) and denying his motion for reconsideration. Our review of the record and the district court's opinions discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal, and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Crowell v. Murray, No. CA-91-646-N (E.D. Va. Mar. 11, 1992 and Mar. 18, 1992). 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

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