Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Campbell v. Ervin, 96-6584 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-6584 Visitors: 6
Filed: Dec. 31, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6584 FREDDY S. CAMPBELL, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DONALD M. ERVIN, Administrator, Charleston Work Release, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Bluefield. David A. Faber, District Judge. (CA-94-411) Submitted: December 10, 1996 Decided: December 31, 1996 Before HALL, MURNAGHAN, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per cur
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6584 FREDDY S. CAMPBELL, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DONALD M. ERVIN, Administrator, Charleston Work Release, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Bluefield. David A. Faber, District Judge. (CA-94-411) Submitted: December 10, 1996 Decided: December 31, 1996 Before HALL, MURNAGHAN, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Freddy S. Campbell, Appellant Pro Se. Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., Scott E. Johnson, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Freddy S. Campbell seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed 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 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. Campbell v. Ervin, No. CA-94-411 (S.D.W. Va., Mar. 6, 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