Filed: Mar. 15, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7770 EUGENE ARTHUR PORTER, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus H. R. POWELL, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-98-272-3) Submitted: February 9, 1999 Decided: March 15, 1999 Before HAMILTON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per cu
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7770 EUGENE ARTHUR PORTER, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus H. R. POWELL, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-98-272-3) Submitted: February 9, 1999 Decided: March 15, 1999 Before HAMILTON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per cur..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7770 EUGENE ARTHUR PORTER, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus H. R. POWELL, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-98-272-3) Submitted: February 9, 1999 Decided: March 15, 1999 Before HAMILTON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Reginald Moore Barley, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Hazel Elizabeth Shaffer, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant 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 the certificate of appealability and dismiss on the reasoning of the district court. See Porter v. Powell, No. CA-98-272-3 (E.D. Va. Dec. 3, 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