Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Jones v. Trent, 98-6884 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-6884 Visitors: 14
Filed: Feb. 05, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6884 ROBERT P. JONES, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GEORGE TRENT, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge. (CA-97-1146-2) Submitted: January 21, 1999 Decided: February 5, 1999 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Matthew Anthony Vic
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6884 ROBERT P. JONES, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GEORGE TRENT, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge. (CA-97-1146-2) Submitted: January 21, 1999 Decided: February 5, 1999 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Matthew Anthony Victor, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Rory Lee Perry, II, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIR- GINIA, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Robert P. Jones 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 accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Jones’ motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Jones v. Trent, No. CA- 97-1146-2 (S.D.W. Va. May 21, 1998). We dispense with oral argu- ment because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pre- sented 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