Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Boblett v. VA Dept Corrections, 96-6080 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-6080 Visitors: 8
Filed: Jul. 30, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6080 RICKY WAYNE BOBLETT, Petitioner - Appellant, versus VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Chief District Judge. (CA-95-488-R) Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: July 30, 1996 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ricky Wayne
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6080 RICKY WAYNE BOBLETT, Petitioner - Appellant, versus VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Chief District Judge. (CA-95-488-R) Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: July 30, 1996 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ricky Wayne Boblett, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Beman Beasley, Jr., 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 habeas corpus petition, 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988), as amended by Act of Apr. 24, 1996, 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254 (Law Co-op. Advance Sheet June 1996). We have reviewed the record and the dis- trict court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal; to the extent that a certificate of appealability is required, we deny such a certifi- cate. We dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Boblett v. Virginia Dep't of Corrections, No. CA-95-488-R (W.D. Va. Dec. 13, 1995). 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 2
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