Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

John Paul Turner v. David S. Kuykendall, Virginia Department of Corrections, District 12, Staunton, Virginia, 96-7375 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-7375 Visitors: 8
Filed: Jan. 06, 1997
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 105 F.3d 648 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. John Paul TURNER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. David S. KUYKENDALL, Virginia Department of Corrections, District 12, Staunton, Virginia, Respondent-Appellee. No. 96-7375. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Argued Dec
More

105 F.3d 648

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
John Paul TURNER, Petitioner--Appellant,
v.
David S. KUYKENDALL, Virginia Department of Corrections,
District 12, Staunton, Virginia, Respondent--Appellee.

No. 96-7375.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Argued Dec. 19, 1996.
Decided Jan. 6, 1997.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (CA-96-131-R)

John Paul Turner, Appellant Pro Se.

W.D.Va.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant appeals the district court's orders denying (1) his motion to reopen a prior decision denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub.L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214, and (2) his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court's orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Turner v. Kuykendall, No. CA-96-131-R (W.D.Va. Aug. 28, 1996). 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