Filed: Sep. 02, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6338 LLOYD WAYNE WATSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS DIRECTOR, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-97-837) Submitted: August 13, 1998 Decided: September 2, 1998 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opi
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6338 LLOYD WAYNE WATSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS DIRECTOR, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-97-837) Submitted: August 13, 1998 Decided: September 2, 1998 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opin..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6338 LLOYD WAYNE WATSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS DIRECTOR, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-97-837) Submitted: August 13, 1998 Decided: September 2, 1998 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lloyd Wayne Watson, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Ralph Davis, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Lloyd Wayne Watson 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 leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of appeal- ability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Watson v. Dep’t of Corr. Dir., No. CA-97-837 (E.D. Va. Feb. 27, 1998). 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