Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Joel A. Nava v. Edward W. Murray, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, 92-6931 (1993)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 92-6931 Visitors: 39
Filed: Aug. 24, 1993
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 4 F.3d 985 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Joel A. NAVA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Edward W. MURRAY, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee. No. 92-6931. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted: March 3, 1993. Decided: August
More

4 F.3d 985

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.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

No. 92-6931.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 3, 1993.
Decided: August 24, 1993.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Tommy E. Miller, Magistrate Judge. (CA-92-193-N)

Joel A. Nava, Appellant Pro Se.

Linwood Theodore Wells, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

E.D.Va.

DISMISSED.

Before WILKINSON and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

1

Joel A. Nava seeks to appeal the district court's order refusing habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 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. Nava v. Murray, No. CA-92-193-N (E.D. Va. Aug. 12, 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