Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Dugan v. Commonwealth of Va, 98-7165 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-7165 Visitors: 21
Filed: Mar. 08, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7165 SAMUEL TROY DUGAN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF COR- RECTIONS; DAVID W. ROBINSON, Warden; NOTTOWAY CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-98-543) Submitted: February 25, 1999 Decided: March 8, 1999 Before HAMILTON, WILLIAMS, an
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7165 SAMUEL TROY DUGAN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF COR- RECTIONS; DAVID W. ROBINSON, Warden; NOTTOWAY CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-98-543) Submitted: February 25, 1999 Decided: March 8, 1999 Before HAMILTON, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Samuel Troy Dugan, Appellant Pro Se. Pamela Anne Sargent, Assis- tant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Samuel Troy Dugan seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 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 appealability and dismiss the appeal on the rea- soning of the district court. See Dugan v. Virginia Dep’t of Cor- rections, No. CA-98-543 (E.D. Va. July 1, 1998). We deny Dugan’s motion for production of documents. 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