Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Johnson v. Young, 4th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The court dismissed an appeal from Shawn Sha Johnson, who had filed a petition under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254, which allows prisoners to challenge their convictions. The district court had denied relief on Johnson's petition. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. Therefore, the appeals court denied Johnson a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the district court's reasoning. The court also denied Johnson's motion for appointment of counsel.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2001-01-04 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 00-7406

    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 summarizes a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The court dismissed an appeal from Shawn Sha Johnson, who had filed a petition under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254, which allows prisoners to challenge their convictions. The district court had denied relief on Johnson's petition. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. Therefore, the appeals court denied Johnson a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the district court's reasoning. The court also denied Johnson's motion for appointment of counsel.

    Copyright:

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

    Johnson v. Young, 4th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The court dismissed an appeal from Shawn Sha Johnson, who had filed a petition under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254, which allows prisoners to challenge their convictions. The district court had denied relief on Johnson's petition. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. Therefore, the appeals court denied Johnson a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the district court's reasoning. The court also denied Johnson's motion for appointment of counsel.

    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. 00-7406

    SHAWN SHA JOHNSON,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    STAN K. YOUNG, Warden,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge.
    (CA-00-302)

    Submitted:

    December 15, 2000

    Decided:

    January 4, 2001

    Before WIDENER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Shawn Sha Johnson, Appellant Pro Se.
    Robert H. Anderson, III,
    OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant appeals the district courts order denying relief on
    his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.
    2000).

    We have reviewed the record and the district courts opin-

    ion and find no reversible error.

    Accordingly, we deny a certif-

    icate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of


    the district court.

    See Johnson v. Gerraghty, No. 3:00CV302 (E.D.

    Va. Sept. 8, 2000).

    Furthermore, we deny Appellants motion for

    appointment of counsel. 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