Filed: Aug. 30, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6625 RICKY WAYNE BOBLETT, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; VIRGINIA PAROLE BOARD, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CA-00-184-7) Submitted: August 24, 2000 Decided: August 30, 2000 Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dism
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6625 RICKY WAYNE BOBLETT, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; VIRGINIA PAROLE BOARD, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CA-00-184-7) Submitted: August 24, 2000 Decided: August 30, 2000 Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismi..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6625 RICKY WAYNE BOBLETT, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; VIRGINIA PAROLE BOARD, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CA-00-184-7) Submitted: August 24, 2000 Decided: August 30, 2000 Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ricky Wayne Boblett, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Ricky Wayne Boblett seeks to appeal 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 certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Boblett v. Director, Dep’t of Corr., No. CA-00-184-7 (W.D. Va. Apr. 21, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate- ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2
