Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

James Earl Parrish v. David A. Williams, Warden, 91-7603 (1992)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 91-7603 Visitors: 10
Filed: Feb. 26, 1992
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 956 F.2d 1162 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. James Earl PARRISH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. David A. WILLIAMS, Warden, Respondent-Appellee. No. 91-7603. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted Jan. 28, 1992. Decided Feb. 26, 1992. Appeal from the United Stat
More

956 F.2d 1162

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
James Earl PARRISH, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
David A. WILLIAMS, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 91-7603.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 28, 1992.
Decided Feb. 26, 1992.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, District Judge. (CA-90-709-R)

James Earl Parrish, appellant pro se.

Richard Bain Smith, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Va., for appellee.

W.D.Va., [Appeal after remand from 948 F.2d 1282]

DISMISSED.

Before WIDENER, K.K. HALL and MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

1

James Earl Parrish 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. Parrish v. Williams, No. CA-90-709-R (W.D.Va. May 1, 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