Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

McKnight v. VA Probation, 98-7510 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-7510 Visitors: 40
Filed: Mar. 17, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7510 LORENZO R. MCKNIGHT, Petitioner - Appellant, versus VIRGINIA PROBATION & PAROLE DISTRICT 34; BARBARA COOKE; LESTER WINGROVE, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-98-570-3) Submitted: March 11, 1999 Decided: March 17, 1999 Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7510 LORENZO R. MCKNIGHT, Petitioner - Appellant, versus VIRGINIA PROBATION & PAROLE DISTRICT 34; BARBARA COOKE; LESTER WINGROVE, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-98-570-3) Submitted: March 11, 1999 Decided: March 17, 1999 Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lorenzo R. McKnight, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Lorenzo McKnight 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 McKnight’s motion for appointment of counsel, deny McKnight’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of appeal- ability, and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See McKnight v. Virginia Probation & Parole District 34, No. CA-98-570-3 (Oct. 7, 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
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