Filed: Sep. 01, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7915 JOHN PAUL TURNER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (CA-04-44-SGW) Submitted: July 29, 2005 Decided: September 1, 2005 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Paul Turner, Appellant P
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7915 JOHN PAUL TURNER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (CA-04-44-SGW) Submitted: July 29, 2005 Decided: September 1, 2005 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Paul Turner, Appellant Pr..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7915 JOHN PAUL TURNER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (CA-04-44-SGW) Submitted: July 29, 2005 Decided: September 1, 2005 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Paul Turner, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: John Paul Turner appeals the district court’s order dismissing this action for want of jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. See Turner v. Virginia, No. CA-04-44-SGW (W.D. Va. Oct. 25, 2004). We deny the motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis and 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 -
