Filed: Mar. 13, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7516 VIRGIL ATWELL MOTLEY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus CHARLES E. THOMPSON, Warden, Respondent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-01-635-7) Submitted: March 6, 2003 Decided: March 13, 2003 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Virgil Atwell Motley,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7516 VIRGIL ATWELL MOTLEY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus CHARLES E. THOMPSON, Warden, Respondent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-01-635-7) Submitted: March 6, 2003 Decided: March 13, 2003 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Virgil Atwell Motley, ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7516
VIRGIL ATWELL MOTLEY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
CHARLES E. THOMPSON, 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-01-635-7)
Submitted: March 6, 2003 Decided: March 13, 2003
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Virgil Atwell Motley, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Carson Vorhis,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Virgil Atwell Motley seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
(2000). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Motley has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, U.S. ,
2003
WL 431659 (U.S. Feb. 25, 2003) (No. 01-7662), at *10. Accordingly,
we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). 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