Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

92-6286 (1992)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 92-6286 Visitors: 31
Filed: Sep. 02, 1992
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 974 F.2d 1330 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Peter Emmanuel BERNARD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. David A. GARRAGHTY, Warden, N.C.C.; Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia; Robert H. Anderson, III, Assistant Attorney General, Respondents-Appellees. No. 92-6286. Unite
More

974 F.2d 1330

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Peter Emmanuel BERNARD, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
David A. GARRAGHTY, Warden, N.C.C.; Attorney General of the
Commonwealth of Virginia; Robert H. Anderson,
III, Assistant Attorney General,
Respondents-Appellees.

No. 92-6286.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 27, 1992
Decided: September 2, 1992

Peter Emmanuel Bernard, Appellant Pro Se.

Robert H. Anderson, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Before HALL, WILKINSON, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

OPINION

1

Peter Emmanuel Bernard seeks to appeal the magistrate judge's order refusing habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988).1 Our review of the record and the magistrate judge'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 magistrate judge.2 Bernard v. Garraghty, No. CA-89-289-R (E.D. Va. Mar. 10, 1992). 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

1

The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1988)

2

Since we have considered Bernard's appeal in the normal course of the appellate process, we deny his motion to expedite

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