Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Robinson v. Pruett, 4th Cir. (1997)

    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    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Kevin Fidel Robinson of the district court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The appeals court reviewed the district court record and found no reversible error in accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation to deny the petition. The appeals court therefore denied Robinson's motion for default judgment, denied a certificate of appealability, and dismissed the appeal based on the reasoning of the district court's June 6, 1996 opinion.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1997-03-18 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 96-6937

    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    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Kevin Fidel Robinson of the district court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The appeals court reviewed the district court record and found no reversible error in accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation to deny the petition. The appeals court therefore denied Robinson's motion for default judgment, denied a certificate of appealability, and dismissed the appeal based on the reasoning of the district court's June 6, 1996 opinion.

    Copyright:

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

    Robinson v. Pruett, 4th Cir. (1997)

    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    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Kevin Fidel Robinson of the district court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The appeals court reviewed the district court record and found no reversible error in accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation to deny the petition. The appeals court therefore denied Robinson's motion for default judgment, denied a certificate of appealability, and dismissed the appeal based on the reasoning of the district court's June 6, 1996 opinion.

    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. 96-6937

    KEVIN FIDEL ROBINSON,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    SAMUEL V. PRUETT, Warden,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge.
    (CA-95-168)
    Submitted:

    March 13, 1997

    Decided:

    March 18, 1997

    Before HALL, ERVIN, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.


    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Kevin Fidel Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Cauthorne Daniel,
    Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    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 petition filed under 28 U.S.C. 2254 (1994), amended
    by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L.
    No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the
    district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny
    Appellant's motion for default judgment, deny a certificate of
    appealability, and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Robinson v. Pruett, No. CA-95-168 (E.D. Va. June 6,
    1996). 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

    You might also like