Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Lajoel T. Rouse v. P.L. Huffman Attorney General of The Commonwealth of Virginia, 16 F.3d 411, 4th Cir. (1994)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    8 views2 pages
    This document is a court case summary from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. It summarizes a case where LaJoel Rouse appealed the district court's denial of relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and district court opinion and found the appeal lacked merit. As a result, the Fourth Circuit denied a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismissed the case, agreeing with the reasoning of the district court's June 30, 1993 decision.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1994-02-04 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 16 F.3d 411 Docket: 93-6766

    Original Title

    Lajoel T. Rouse v. P.L. Huffman Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia, 16 F.3d 411, 4th Cir. (1994)

    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 a court case summary from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. It summarizes a case where LaJoel Rouse appealed the district court's denial of relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and district court opinion and found the appeal lacked merit. As a result, the Fourth Circuit denied a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismissed the case, agreeing with the reasoning of the district court's June 30, 1993 decision.

    Copyright:

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

    Lajoel T. Rouse v. P.L. Huffman Attorney General of The Commonwealth of Virginia, 16 F.3d 411, 4th Cir. (1994)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a court case summary from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. It summarizes a case where LaJoel Rouse appealed the district court's denial of relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and district court opinion and found the appeal lacked merit. As a result, the Fourth Circuit denied a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismissed the case, agreeing with the reasoning of the district court's June 30, 1993 decision.

    Copyright:

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

    16 F.

    3d 411
    NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished
    dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law
    of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the
    Fourth Circuit.

    LaJoel T. ROUSE, Petitioner Appellant,


    v.
    P.L. HUFFMAN; Attorney General of the Commonwealth of
    Virginia, Respondents Appellees.
    No. 93-6766.

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.


    Submitted: January 20, 1994.
    Decided: February 4, 1994.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of
    Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Chief District Judge. (CA-93-359)
    LaJoel T. Rouse, appellant pro se.
    Alan Katz, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond,
    Virginia, for appellees.
    W.D.Va.
    DISMISSED.
    Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:

    Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28
    U.S.C. Sec. 2254 (1988) petition. Our review of the record and the district
    court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we
    deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the
    reasoning of the district court. Rouse v. Huffman, No. CA-93-359 (W.D. Va.
    June 30, 1993). 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