Filed: Jan. 06, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7242 LAWRENCE M. BREAKLEY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GEORGE HINKLE, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, District Judge. (CA-95-1786) Submitted: December 17, 1996 Decided: January 6, 1997 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lawrence M. Breakley,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7242 LAWRENCE M. BREAKLEY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GEORGE HINKLE, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, District Judge. (CA-95-1786) Submitted: December 17, 1996 Decided: January 6, 1997 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lawrence M. Breakley, ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7242 LAWRENCE M. BREAKLEY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GEORGE HINKLE, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, District Judge. (CA-95-1786) Submitted: December 17, 1996 Decided: January 6, 1997 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lawrence M. Breakley, Appellant Pro Se. Leah Ann Darron, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 (1994), amended by Anti- terrorism 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 appealability and dismiss the appeal on the rea- soning of the district court. Breakley v. Hinkle, No. CA-95-1786 (E.D. Va. July 31, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma- terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2