Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Barlow v. Herron, 96-7601 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-7601 Visitors: 11
Filed: Jan. 24, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7601 CHARLES W. BARLOW, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WILLARD L. HERRON, Sheriff of Randolph County, Respondent - Appellee. No. 96-7604 CHARLES W. BARLOW, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WILLARD L. HERRON, Respondent - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert Earl Maxwell, Senior District Judge. (CA-96-56-2, CA-96-79-2) Submitted: January 9, 1997 D
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7601 CHARLES W. BARLOW, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WILLARD L. HERRON, Sheriff of Randolph County, Respondent - Appellee. No. 96-7604 CHARLES W. BARLOW, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WILLARD L. HERRON, Respondent - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert Earl Maxwell, Senior District Judge. (CA-96-56-2, CA-96-79-2) Submitted: January 9, 1997 Decided: January 24, 1997 Before HALL and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. 2 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles W. Barlow, Appellant Pro Se. Rory L. Perry, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: This is a consolidated appeal in which the Appellant, a West Virginia inmate, appeals the district court's orders denying relief on his two petitions 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 records and the district court's opinions and find no reversible error. According- ly, we deny certificates of appealability and dismiss the appeals on the reasoning of the district court. Barlow v. Herron, No. CA- 96-56-2 (N.D.W. Va. Sept. 24, 1996); Barlow v. Herron, No. CA-96- 79-2 (N.D.W. Va. Oct. 16, 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 3
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