Filed: May 04, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6397 SAMUEL ANDREW MILLER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JACK LEE, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-99-855) Submitted: April 27, 2000 Decided: May 4, 2000 Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Samuel Andrew Mil
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6397 SAMUEL ANDREW MILLER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JACK LEE, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-99-855) Submitted: April 27, 2000 Decided: May 4, 2000 Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Samuel Andrew Mill..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6397 SAMUEL ANDREW MILLER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JACK LEE, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-99-855) Submitted: April 27, 2000 Decided: May 4, 2000 Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Samuel Andrew Miller, Appellant Pro Se. Leah Ann Darron, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Samuel Andrew Miller seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on 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 Miller v. Lee, No. CA-99- 855 (W.D. Va. Feb. 8, 2000). We dispense with oral argument be- cause the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2
