Filed: Feb. 28, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7827 ROBERT LEE BROCK, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WARDEN, Indian Creek Correctional Center, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-95-1076-R) Submitted: February 7, 1996 Decided: February 28, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7827 ROBERT LEE BROCK, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WARDEN, Indian Creek Correctional Center, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-95-1076-R) Submitted: February 7, 1996 Decided: February 28, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per c..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7827 ROBERT LEE BROCK, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WARDEN, Indian Creek Correctional Center, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-95-1076-R) Submitted: February 7, 1996 Decided: February 28, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Lee Brock, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal 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 ap- peal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Brock v. Warden, No. CA-95-1076-R (W.D. Va. Oct. 10, 1995). 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 2
