Filed: Jul. 31, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6339 WILL ADAMS, a/k/a Skip Adams-Taylor, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GEORGE HINKLE, Warden, Augusta Correctional Center, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-108-AM) Submitted: July 25, 2002 Decided: July 31, 2002 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6339 WILL ADAMS, a/k/a Skip Adams-Taylor, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GEORGE HINKLE, Warden, Augusta Correctional Center, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-108-AM) Submitted: July 25, 2002 Decided: July 31, 2002 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished p..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6339 WILL ADAMS, a/k/a Skip Adams-Taylor, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GEORGE HINKLE, Warden, Augusta Correctional Center, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-108-AM) Submitted: July 25, 2002 Decided: July 31, 2002 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Will Adams, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Will Adams seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief without prejudice on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2002), for failure to exhaust state court remedies. 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. Adams v. Hinkle, No. CA-02-108-AM (E.D. Va. Feb. 6, 2002). 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
