Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Turner v. Kuykendall, 96-7375 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-7375 Visitors: 36
Filed: Jan. 06, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7375 JOHN PAUL TURNER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DAVID S. KUYKENDALL, Virginia Department of Corrections, District 12, Staunton, Virginia, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (CA-96-131-R) Submitted: December 19, 1996 Decided: January 6, 1997 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Ci
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7375 JOHN PAUL TURNER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DAVID S. KUYKENDALL, Virginia Department of Corrections, District 12, Staunton, Virginia, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (CA-96-131-R) Submitted: December 19, 1996 Decided: January 6, 1997 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Paul Turner, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's orders denying (1) his motion to reopen a prior decision 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, and (2) his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court's orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dis- miss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Turner v. Kuykendall, No. CA-96-131-R (W.D. Va. Aug. 28, 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