Filed: Dec. 04, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6861 DARNELL L. HUDSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DIRECTOR OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CA-99-937) Submitted: September 8, 2000 Decided: December 4, 2000 Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublis
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6861 DARNELL L. HUDSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DIRECTOR OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CA-99-937) Submitted: September 8, 2000 Decided: December 4, 2000 Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublish..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6861 DARNELL L. HUDSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DIRECTOR OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CA-99-937) Submitted: September 8, 2000 Decided: December 4, 2000 Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Darnell L. Hudson, Appellant Pro Se. Jeffrey Scott Shapiro, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Darnell L. Hudson 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 rea- soning of the district court. See Hudson v. Director of Virginia Dep’t of Corrections, No. CA-99-937 (W.D. Va. May 1, 2000). Hud- son’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied. 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