Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Bowles v. Taylor, 97-7527 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 97-7527 Visitors: 12
Filed: Mar. 12, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7527 ALLEN WADELL BOWLES, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JOHN TAYLOR, Warden, Buckingham Correctional Center, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CA-96-644-R) Submitted: February 10, 1998 Decided: March 12, 1998 Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismisse
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7527 ALLEN WADELL BOWLES, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JOHN TAYLOR, Warden, Buckingham Correctional Center, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CA-96-644-R) Submitted: February 10, 1998 Decided: March 12, 1998 Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Allen Wadell Bowles, Appellant Pro Se. Daniel John Munroe, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Appellant contends that the district court should have held an evidentiary hearing to explore the claims asserted in his petition. Our review of the record discloses no basis for an evidentiary hearing in the district court. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254(e)(2) (West Supp. 1997). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dis- miss the appeal. 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
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