Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Gullion v. Warden of Brunswick, 98-6275 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-6275 Visitors: 16
Filed: Jun. 03, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6275 SAMUEL DAVID GULLION, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WARDEN OF BRUNSWICK CORRECTIONAL CENTER,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-97-361-R) Submitted: May 14, 1998 Decided: June 3, 1998 Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opin
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6275 SAMUEL DAVID GULLION, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WARDEN OF BRUNSWICK CORRECTIONAL CENTER,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-97-361-R) Submitted: May 14, 1998 Decided: June 3, 1998 Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Samuel David Gullion, Appellant Pro Se. Leah Ann Darron, Assistant Attorney General, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. ยง 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). On appeal, he challenges the district court's denial of relief on his claims that the victim's contradictory testimony amounted to perjury, that his counsel was ineffective in failing to challenge the testimony, and that the trial transcript was altered to cover up perjury and other trial errors. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommenda- tion of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accord- ingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Gullion v. Warden of Brunswick Correctional Ctr., No. CA-97-361-R (W.D. Va. Feb. 12, 1998). 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