Filed: Jul. 20, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6739 CEDRIC J. WEBB, Petitioner - Appellant, versus D. A. BRAXTON, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CA-00-816-7) Submitted: July 12, 2001 Decided: July 20, 2001 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cedric J. Webb, Appellant Pro Se
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6739 CEDRIC J. WEBB, Petitioner - Appellant, versus D. A. BRAXTON, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CA-00-816-7) Submitted: July 12, 2001 Decided: July 20, 2001 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cedric J. Webb, Appellant Pro Se...
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-6739
CEDRIC J. WEBB,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
D. A. BRAXTON, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District
Judge. (CA-00-816-7)
Submitted: July 12, 2001 Decided: July 20, 2001
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Cedric J. Webb, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Paul Murphy, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Cedric J. Webb 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. We decline to con-
sider Webb’s claim, presented for the first time on appeal, that
the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction of pos-
session with intent to distribute controlled substances. See Muth
v. United States,
1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we
deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the
reasoning of the district court. See Webb v. Braxton, No. CA-00-
816-7 (W.D. Va. Feb. 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.
DISMISSED
2