Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Jones v. Lawson, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Darnell Jones, who had filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. 2254 seeking relief from his conviction. The court reviewed Jones' case and the district court's denial of relief and found no reversible error. Accordingly, the court denied Jones a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the district court's reasoning. The court also noted that while Jones believed his notice of appeal and brief had begun the exhaustion process, he must actually initiate a separate state court proceeding to satisfy the exhaustion requirement under 28 U.S.C. 2254.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1996-01-05 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 95-7527

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Darnell Jones, who had filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. 2254 seeking relief from his conviction. The court reviewed Jones' case and the district court's denial of relief and found no reversible error. Accordingly, the court denied Jones a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the district court's reasoning. The court also noted that while Jones believed his notice of appeal and brief had begun the exhaustion process, he must actually initiate a separate state court proceeding to satisfy the exhaustion requirement under 28 U.S.C. 2254.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    3 views2 pages

    Jones v. Lawson, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Darnell Jones, who had filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. 2254 seeking relief from his conviction. The court reviewed Jones' case and the district court's denial of relief and found no reversible error. Accordingly, the court denied Jones a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the district court's reasoning. The court also noted that while Jones believed his notice of appeal and brief had begun the exhaustion process, he must actually initiate a separate state court proceeding to satisfy the exhaustion requirement under 28 U.S.C. 2254.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 95-7527

    DARNELL JONES,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    THOMAS LAWSON; HAROLD A. BLACK; WARDEN OF THE
    AUGUSTA CORRECTIONAL CENTER,
    Respondents - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge.
    (CA-95-1025-R)
    Submitted:

    December 19, 1995

    Decided:

    January 5, 1996

    Before MURNAGHAN and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior


    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Darnell Jones, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying
    relief on his 28 U.S.C. 2254 (1988) petition. We have reviewed
    the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible
    error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court.
    Jones v. Lawson, No. CA-95-1025-R (W.D. Va. Sept. 19, 1995).* 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

    We gather from Appellant's notice of appeal and informal


    brief to this court that he believes that those documents have
    begun the exhaustion process. In order to satisfy the exhaustion
    requirement of 28 U.S.C. 2254(b), (c), Appellant must initiate a
    separate proceeding in state court.
    2

    You might also like