Filed: Oct. 21, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6770 RICHARD GRAVELY, Petitioner - Appellant, v. STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph R. Goodwin, Chief District Judge. (2:09-cv-00112) Submitted: October 15, 2009 Decided: October 21, 2009 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard Gravely, Appella
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6770 RICHARD GRAVELY, Petitioner - Appellant, v. STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph R. Goodwin, Chief District Judge. (2:09-cv-00112) Submitted: October 15, 2009 Decided: October 21, 2009 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard Gravely, Appellan..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6770 RICHARD GRAVELY, Petitioner - Appellant, v. STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph R. Goodwin, Chief District Judge. (2:09-cv-00112) Submitted: October 15, 2009 Decided: October 21, 2009 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard Gravely, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Richard Gravely appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying his petition for a writ of coram nobis. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Gravely v. West Virginia, No. 2:09-cv-00112 (S.D.W. Va. Apr. 15, 2009). 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. AFFIRMED 2
