Filed: Oct. 15, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6568 ROBERT E. MCVICKER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STEPHEN YARDLEY, Warden, Denmar Correctional Center, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert Earl Maxwell, Senior District Judge. (CA-98-50-2) Submitted: August 31, 2001 Decided: October 15, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6568 ROBERT E. MCVICKER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STEPHEN YARDLEY, Warden, Denmar Correctional Center, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert Earl Maxwell, Senior District Judge. (CA-98-50-2) Submitted: August 31, 2001 Decided: October 15, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6568 ROBERT E. MCVICKER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STEPHEN YARDLEY, Warden, Denmar Correctional Center, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert Earl Maxwell, Senior District Judge. (CA-98-50-2) Submitted: August 31, 2001 Decided: October 15, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert E. McVicker, Appellant Pro Se. Dawn Ellen Warfield, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Vir- ginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Robert E. McVicker appeals 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 affirm on the reasoning of the district court. McVicker v. Yardley, No. CA- 98-50-2 (N.D.W. Va. Mar. 6, 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. AFFIRMED 2
