Filed: Mar. 16, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6049 KEVIN L. NEAL, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DAVID ROBINSON, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert v. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-99-929-AM) Submitted: March 9, 2000 Decided: March 16, 2000 Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kevin L. Neal, Appellant
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6049 KEVIN L. NEAL, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DAVID ROBINSON, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert v. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-99-929-AM) Submitted: March 9, 2000 Decided: March 16, 2000 Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kevin L. Neal, Appellant ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6049 KEVIN L. NEAL, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DAVID ROBINSON, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert v. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-99-929-AM) Submitted: March 9, 2000 Decided: March 16, 2000 Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kevin L. Neal, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Paul Murphy, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Kevin L. Neal seeks to appeal the district court’s order deny- ing relief as untimely his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1999). We have reviewed the record and the dis- trict court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Neal v. Robinson, No. CA- 99-929-AM (E.D. Va. Sept. 1, 1999).* 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 * We construe Neal’s letter filed September 23, 1999, as a timely notice of appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(A). 2