Filed: Mar. 03, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7523 JAIME ACEVEDO, Petitioner - Appellant, versus D. A. GARRAGHTY, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-99-288-7) Submitted: February 24, 2000 Decided: March 3, 2000 Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jaime Acevedo, Appellant
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7523 JAIME ACEVEDO, Petitioner - Appellant, versus D. A. GARRAGHTY, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-99-288-7) Submitted: February 24, 2000 Decided: March 3, 2000 Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jaime Acevedo, Appellant ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7523 JAIME ACEVEDO, Petitioner - Appellant, versus D. A. GARRAGHTY, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-99-288-7) Submitted: February 24, 2000 Decided: March 3, 2000 Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jaime Acevedo, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Bain Smith, Assistant At- torney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Jaime Acevedo seeks to appeal the district court’s order de- nying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1999). 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 Acevedo v. Garraghty, No. CA-99- 288-7 (W.D. Va. Oct. 22, 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 2
