Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Marks v. Duncil, 96-6423 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-6423 Visitors: 4
Filed: Oct. 10, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6423 ROBERT S. MARKS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WILLIAM C. DUNCIL, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Joseph Robert Goodwin, District Judge. (CA-95-304-3) Submitted: October 3, 1996 Decided: October 10, 1996 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert S. Marks, Appellant
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6423 ROBERT S. MARKS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WILLIAM C. DUNCIL, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Joseph Robert Goodwin, District Judge. (CA-95-304-3) Submitted: October 3, 1996 Decided: October 10, 1996 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert S. Marks, Appellant Pro Se. Silas Bent Taylor, Deputy Attorney General, Charleston, West 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 petition brought under 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 (1994), 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 accepting the recommenda- tion of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accord- ingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause; 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. Marks v. Duncil, No. CA-95-304-3 (S.D.W. Va. Feb. 13, 1996). 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