Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Latham v. Garraghty, 01-6077 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-6077 Visitors: 136
Filed: Aug. 29, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6077 JAMES BENNETT LATHAM, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus DAVID A. GARRAGHTY, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. No. 01-6385 JAMES BENNETT LATHAM, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus DAVID A. GARRAGHTY, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CA-00-1005-AM) Submitted: August 23, 2001 Decided:
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6077 JAMES BENNETT LATHAM, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus DAVID A. GARRAGHTY, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. No. 01-6385 JAMES BENNETT LATHAM, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus DAVID A. GARRAGHTY, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CA-00-1005-AM) Submitted: August 23, 2001 Decided: August 29, 2001 Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Bennett Latham, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Richard Carson Vorhis, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: James Bennett Latham, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2001) and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny certificates of appealability and dismiss these appeals on the reasoning of the district court. Latham v. Garraghty, No. CA-00- 1005-AM (E.D. Va. Dec. 6, 2000; filed Feb. 6, 2001, and entered Feb. 9, 2001). 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
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer