Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Warren Hackler v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 91-6289 (1991)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 91-6289 Visitors: 3
Filed: May 29, 1991
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 934 F.2d 319 Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Warren HACKLER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Respondent-Appellee. No. 91-6289. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted May 6, 1991. Decided May 29, 1991. Appeal from
More

934 F.2d 319
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Warren HACKLER, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 91-6289.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 6, 1991.
Decided May 29, 1991.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, District Judge. (CA-91-99-R)

Warren Hackler, appellant pro se.

W.D.Va.

DISMISSED.

Before DONALD RUSSELL, WILKINSON and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Warren Hackler seeks to appeal the district court's order refusing habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Hackler v. Virginia, CA-91-99-R (W.D.Va. Feb. 6, 1991). We deny appellant's motions for release, to enjoin treatment, and for a stay of the briefing schedule pending ruling on his motions. 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.

2

DISMISSED.

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