Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Burgess v. Mahon, 98-6043 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-6043 Visitors: 14
Filed: Sep. 17, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6043 LEVI BURGESS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DANIEL T. MAHON, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-97-1100-AM) Submitted: August 11, 1998 Decided: September 17, 1998 Before WIDENER, ERVIN, and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Levi Burgess, App
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6043 LEVI BURGESS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DANIEL T. MAHON, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-97-1100-AM) Submitted: August 11, 1998 Decided: September 17, 1998 Before WIDENER, ERVIN, and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Levi Burgess, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Thomas Judge, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Levi Burgess seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). 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. Burgess v. Mahon, No. CA-97-1100-AM (E.D. Va. Dec. 5, 1997). We find meritless Burgess’s claim that his attorney rendered ineffective assistance of counsel because he failed to argue that the Kannapolis, North Carolina, police de- partment did not have jurisdiction to serve the search warrant at his residence. 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