Filed: Mar. 06, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7966 MARIO L. BALLARD, Petitioner - Appellant, versus PAGE TRUE, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CA-01-380-7) Submitted: February 21, 2002 Decided: March 6, 2002 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mario Ballard, Appellant Pro Se. U
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7966 MARIO L. BALLARD, Petitioner - Appellant, versus PAGE TRUE, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CA-01-380-7) Submitted: February 21, 2002 Decided: March 6, 2002 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mario Ballard, Appellant Pro Se. Un..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-7966
MARIO L. BALLARD,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
PAGE TRUE, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District
Judge. (CA-01-380-7)
Submitted: February 21, 2002 Decided: March 6, 2002
Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mario Ballard, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Mario Ballard appeals the district court’s order denying
relief on his motion to amend his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &
Supp. 2001) petition and his motion for declaratory judgment. The
district court dismissed without prejudice Ballard’s § 2254
petition. Ballard’s motion to amend and motion for declaratory
relief essentially are the latest in a series of motions for recon-
sideration of the district court’s denial of his § 2254 petition.
Because Ballard has stated no grounds for reconsideration, we deny
a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. United
States v. Williams,
674 F.2d 310, 313 (4th Cir. 1982) (no relief
warranted when motion for reconsideration merely asks district
court to change its mind). Ballard’s motion for en banc hearing is
denied. 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