Filed: Apr. 29, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7847 GERALD A. THOMAS, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus PRINCE WILLIAM-MANASSAS ADULT DETENTION CENTER, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-95-760-AM) Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: April 29, 1996 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7847 GERALD A. THOMAS, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus PRINCE WILLIAM-MANASSAS ADULT DETENTION CENTER, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-95-760-AM) Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: April 29, 1996 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7847 GERALD A. THOMAS, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus PRINCE WILLIAM-MANASSAS ADULT DETENTION CENTER, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-95-760-AM) Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: April 29, 1996 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gerald A. Thomas, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. Thomas v. Prince William-Manassas Detention Ctr., No. CA-95-760-AM (E.D. Va. Nov. 9, 1995). 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. DISMISSED 2
