Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Earl Scott Braxton v. Lonnie M. Saunders, Warden, 92-6957 (1992)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 92-6957 Visitors: 9
Filed: Dec. 31, 1992
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 983 F.2d 1055 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Earl Scott BRAXTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Lonnie M. SAUNDERS, Warden, Respondent-Appellee. No. 92-6957. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted: December 8, 1992 Decided: December 31, 1992 Appeal from the Uni
More

983 F.2d 1055

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Earl Scott BRAXTON, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Lonnie M. SAUNDERS, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 92-6957.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: December 8, 1992
Decided: December 31, 1992

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert R. Merhige, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-92-316)

Earl Scott Braxton, Appellant Pro Se.

Oliver Lewis Norrell, III, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

E.D.Va.

Dismissed.

Before PHILLIPS, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

OPINION

1

Earl Scott Braxton seeks to appeal the district court's order refusing habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988). Our review of the record and the district court'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 district court. Braxton v. Saunders, No. CA-92-316 (E.D. Va. Sept. 9, 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