Filed: Dec. 04, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7072 DANA S. GRAHAM, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WARDEN OF THE AUGUSTA CORRECTIONAL CENTER; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-91-752) Submitted: November 21, 1996 Decided: December 4, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished pe
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7072 DANA S. GRAHAM, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WARDEN OF THE AUGUSTA CORRECTIONAL CENTER; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-91-752) Submitted: November 21, 1996 Decided: December 4, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7072 DANA S. GRAHAM, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WARDEN OF THE AUGUSTA CORRECTIONAL CENTER; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-91-752) Submitted: November 21, 1996 Decided: December 4, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dana S. Graham, Appellant Pro Se. Linwood Theodore Wells, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the magistrate judge's order* denying Appel- lant's motion for relief from a judgment denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994), amended by Antiter- rorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104- 132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the magistrate judge's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the rea- soning of the magistrate judge. Graham v. Warden, No. CA-91-752 (E.D. Va. June 19, 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 deci- sional process. DISMISSED * The parties consented to the exercise of jurisdiction by a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (1994). 2