Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Sammee Dale Garvin v. David A. Garraghty, Warden Commonwealth of Virginia, 861 F.2d 264, 4th Cir. (1988)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views2 pages
    This document is a court case summary from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. It summarizes that Sammee Dale Garvin appealed the district court's denial of his post-judgment motion in a habeas corpus case. The appeals court found it did not have jurisdiction to review the underlying judgment, as the appeal was untimely, but could only review the denial of the post-judgment motion. Upon review, the appeals court found no abuse of discretion in the denial of that motion and dismissed the appeal, citing the reasoning of the district court.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1988-10-21 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Citations: 861 F.2d 264 Docket: 88-6653

    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 that Sammee Dale Garvin appealed the district court's denial of his post-judgment motion in a habeas corpus case. The appeals court found it did not have jurisdiction to review the underlying judgment, as the appeal was untimely, but could only review the denial of the post-judgment motion. Upon review, the appeals court found no abuse of discretion in the denial of that motion and dismissed the appeal, citing the reasoning of the district court.

    Copyright:

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

    Sammee Dale Garvin v. David A. Garraghty, Warden Commonwealth of Virginia, 861 F.2d 264, 4th Cir. (1988)

    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 that Sammee Dale Garvin appealed the district court's denial of his post-judgment motion in a habeas corpus case. The appeals court found it did not have jurisdiction to review the underlying judgment, as the appeal was untimely, but could only review the denial of the post-judgment motion. Upon review, the appeals court found no abuse of discretion in the denial of that motion and dismissed the appeal, citing the reasoning of the district court.

    Copyright:

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

    861 F.

    2d 264
    Unpublished Disposition

    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.
    Sammee Dale GARVIN, Petitioner-Appellant,
    v.
    David A. GARRAGHTY, Warden; Commonwealth of Virginia,
    Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 88-6653.

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.


    Submitted: Sept. 19, 1988.
    Decided: Oct. 21, 1988.

    Sammee Dale Garvin, appellant pro se.


    Richard Bain Smith (Office of the Attorney General of Virginia), for
    appellees.
    Before MURNAGHAN and ERVIN, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER,
    Senior Circuit Judge.
    PER CURIAM:

    Sammee Dale Garvin seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his postjudgment motion filed in this action brought under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254.
    Because Garvin's post-judgment motion was served more than ten days after
    entry of judgment, it did not toll the period to appeal the underlying judgment,
    and the appeal is untimely as to that judgment. See Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(4);
    Browder v. Director, Dep't of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257 (1978). We therefore
    have jurisdiction to review only the district court's denial of Garvin's postjudgment motion; we find no abuse of discretion in the denial of that motion.
    See Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to

    appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Garvin v.
    Garraghty, C/A No. 87-648-AM (E.D.Va. Apr. 21, 1988). We dispense with
    oral argument because the dispositive issues recently have been decided
    authoritatively.
    2

    DISMISSED.

    You might also like