Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Davis v. Mahon, 95-7211 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-7211 Visitors: 18
Filed: Feb. 22, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 01, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7211 TERRENCE J. DAVIS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus MR. MAHON, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-95-158) Submitted: February 7, 1996 Decided: February 22, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ter
More
                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



                            No. 95-7211



TERRENCE J. DAVIS,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

MR. MAHON,

                                            Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior
District Judge. (CA-95-158)


Submitted:   February 7, 1996          Decided:     February 22, 1996


Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Terrence J. Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

     Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying

relief on his 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 (1988) petition. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to

appeal and dismiss on the reasoning of the district court. Davis v.
Mahon, No. CA-95-158 (E.D. Va. July 17, 1995). We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate-

ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.




                                                         DISMISSED




                                  2

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