Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Roberts v. Dodson, 96-6319 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-6319 Visitors: 19
Filed: Sep. 10, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6319 BOBBY RAY ROBERTS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GEORGE P. DODSON, a/k/a George Deeds, Warden, Keen Mountain Correctional Center; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-95-254-R) Submitted: August 27, 1996 Decided: September 10, 1996 Before WILLIAMS and
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6319 BOBBY RAY ROBERTS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GEORGE P. DODSON, a/k/a George Deeds, Warden, Keen Mountain Correctional Center; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-95-254-R) Submitted: August 27, 1996 Decided: September 10, 1996 Before WILLIAMS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bobby Ray Roberts, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Bain Smith, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 petition filed under 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 (1988), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. 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 appeal; to the extent that a certificate of appealability is required, we deny such a certificate. We dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Roberts v. Dodson, No. CA-95-254-R (W.D. Va. Feb. 16, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten- tions 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