Filed: Oct. 19, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6204 NORMAN LEE MAYO, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DAVID GARRAGHTY, Warden; VIRGINIA PAROLE BOARD, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-99-964-AM) Submitted: September 30, 2000 Decided: October 19, 2000 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6204 NORMAN LEE MAYO, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DAVID GARRAGHTY, Warden; VIRGINIA PAROLE BOARD, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-99-964-AM) Submitted: September 30, 2000 Decided: October 19, 2000 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6204 NORMAN LEE MAYO, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DAVID GARRAGHTY, Warden; VIRGINIA PAROLE BOARD, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-99-964-AM) Submitted: September 30, 2000 Decided: October 19, 2000 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Norman Lee Mayo, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Norman Lee Mayo appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a cer- tificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Mayo v. Garraghty, No. CA-99-964-AM (E.D. Va. Jan. 11, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma- terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2
