Filed: Mar. 28, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7487 BRIAN KEITH HART, Petitioner - Appellant, versus SNODDGRASS, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-95-181-3) Submitted: March 5, 1996 Decided: March 28, 1996 Before HALL and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Brian Keith Har
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7487 BRIAN KEITH HART, Petitioner - Appellant, versus SNODDGRASS, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-95-181-3) Submitted: March 5, 1996 Decided: March 28, 1996 Before HALL and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Brian Keith Hart..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7487
BRIAN KEITH HART,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
SNODDGRASS, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge.
(CA-95-181-3)
Submitted: March 5, 1996 Decided: March 28, 1996
Before HALL and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Brian Keith Hart, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Bain Smith, Assistant
Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals from 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 grant a certificate of probable cause and
affirm the district court. All of the Appellant's claims are proce-
durally barred, see Harris v. Reed,
489 U.S. 255 (1989); Wainright
v. Sykes,
433 U.S. 72, 87 (1977), except those alleging that his
trial attorney rendered ineffective assistance of counsel and that
his sentence was excessive. The claims that are not procedurally
barred, though, are without merit, as explained in the district
court's opinion. Hart v. Snoddgrass, No. CA-95-181-3 (E.D. Va.
Sept. 8, 1995). We deny the motion for bail pending appeal in light
of this disposition. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate-
rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
2