Filed: Oct. 21, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7208 DAVID LEE PRINCE, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus D. R. GUILLORY, Warden, Powhatan Correctional Center, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CA-95-847-A) Submitted: October 8, 1998 Decided: October 21, 1998 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7208 DAVID LEE PRINCE, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus D. R. GUILLORY, Warden, Powhatan Correctional Center, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CA-95-847-A) Submitted: October 8, 1998 Decided: October 21, 1998 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished p..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-7208
DAVID LEE PRINCE, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
D. R. GUILLORY, Warden, Powhatan Correctional
Center,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior Dis-
trict Judge. (CA-95-847-A)
Submitted: October 8, 1998 Decided: October 21, 1998
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David Lee Prince, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Linwood Theodore Wells,
Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994) (current
version at 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998)). 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 the appeal on the reasoning of the dis-
trict court. See Lindh v. Murphy,
521 U.S. ___,
1997 WL 338568
(U.S. June 23, 1997) (No. 96-6298); Prince v. Guillory, No. CA-95-
847-A (E.D. Va. July 29, 1997). 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