Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Gooden v. Braxton, 03-6101 (2003)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 03-6101 Visitors: 10
Filed: Feb. 28, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6101 ARTHUR LEE GOODEN, II, Petitioner - Appellant, versus D. A. BRAXTON, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CA-01-666-7) Submitted: February 20, 2003 Decided: February 28, 2003 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Arthur Lee Gooden, II
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6101 ARTHUR LEE GOODEN, II, Petitioner - Appellant, versus D. A. BRAXTON, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CA-01-666-7) Submitted: February 20, 2003 Decided: February 28, 2003 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Arthur Lee Gooden, II, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Arthur Lee Gooden, II, seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000), and his motion to reconsider the order, and denying his motion to reconsider the magistrate judge’s order denying his motion to amend his pleading. We have reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that Gooden has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See Gooden v. Braxton, No. CA-01-666-7 (W.D. Va. Oct. 8, 2002; Dec. 18, 2002). 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
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer