Filed: Mar. 27, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6065 ROBERT L. CAIN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus D. A. BRAXTON, Warden, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-01-210-3) Submitted: March 5, 2002 Decided: March 27, 2002 Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert L. Cain, Appellant Pro Se. Pamela
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6065 ROBERT L. CAIN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus D. A. BRAXTON, Warden, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-01-210-3) Submitted: March 5, 2002 Decided: March 27, 2002 Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert L. Cain, Appellant Pro Se. Pamela A..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6065 ROBERT L. CAIN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus D. A. BRAXTON, Warden, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-01-210-3) Submitted: March 5, 2002 Decided: March 27, 2002 Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert L. Cain, Appellant Pro Se. Pamela Anne Sargent, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Robert L. Cain seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2001). 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 reasoning of the district court. See Cain v. Braxton, No. CA-01- 210-3 (E.D. Va. Dec. 10, 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
