Filed: May 24, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-6798 PABLO VEGA MEDINA, Petitioner - Appellant, versus EDWARD W. MURRAY, Director, Virginia Depart- ment of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (CA-94-193-R) Submitted: December 12, 1995 Decided: May 24, 1996 Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge, MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judge, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Ju
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-6798 PABLO VEGA MEDINA, Petitioner - Appellant, versus EDWARD W. MURRAY, Director, Virginia Depart- ment of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (CA-94-193-R) Submitted: December 12, 1995 Decided: May 24, 1996 Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge, MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judge, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Jud..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-6798 PABLO VEGA MEDINA, Petitioner - Appellant, versus EDWARD W. MURRAY, Director, Virginia Depart- ment of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (CA-94-193-R) Submitted: December 12, 1995 Decided: May 24, 1996 Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge, MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judge, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Pablo Vega Medina, Appellant Pro Se. Katherine P. Baldwin, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 (1988) petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to ap- peal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Medina v. Murray, No. CA-94-193-R (W.D. Va. Apr. 20, 1995). We deny Appellant's motion for appointment of counsel and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate- ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2