Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Ewell Douglas Hodges v. Edward W. Murray Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia, 91-7336 (1992)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 91-7336 Visitors: 36
Filed: Feb. 14, 1992
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 955 F.2d 41 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Ewell Douglas HODGES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Edward W. MURRAY; Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Respondents-Appellees. No. 91-7336. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted Feb. 3, 1992. Decided
More

955 F.2d 41

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Ewell Douglas HODGES, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Edward W. MURRAY; Attorney General of the Commonwealth of
Virginia, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 91-7336.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 3, 1992.
Decided Feb. 14, 1992.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, District Judge. (CA-91-526-R)

Ewell Douglas Hodges, appellant pro se.

Robert Harkness Herring, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Va., for appellees.

N.D.Va.

DISMISSED.

Before WIDENER, HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

1

Ewell Douglas Hodges seeks to appeal the district court's order refusing habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988). 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. Hodges v. Murray, No. CA-91-526-R (W.D.Va. Oct. 25, 1991). 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