Filed: Feb. 14, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7524 ROBERT V. FUNK, Petitioner - Appellant, versus S. K. YOUNG, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-99-801-7) Submitted: February 8, 2001 Decided: February 14, 2001 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert V. Funk, Appellant Pro Se. Banci Enga T
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7524 ROBERT V. FUNK, Petitioner - Appellant, versus S. K. YOUNG, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-99-801-7) Submitted: February 8, 2001 Decided: February 14, 2001 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert V. Funk, Appellant Pro Se. Banci Enga Te..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7524 ROBERT V. FUNK, Petitioner - Appellant, versus S. K. YOUNG, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-99-801-7) Submitted: February 8, 2001 Decided: February 14, 2001 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert V. Funk, Appellant Pro Se. Banci Enga Tewolde, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Robert V. Funk 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 Funk v. Young, No. CA-99-801-7 (W.D. Va. Sept. 29, 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
