Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Ballard v. True, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    7 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Mario Ballard's appeal of the district court's denial of his motion to amend his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 petition and motion for declaratory judgment. The district court had previously dismissed Ballard's § 2254 petition without prejudice. The Court of Appeals found that Ballard's latest motions were essentially motions for reconsideration of the denial of his § 2254 petition, but provided no grounds for reconsideration. Therefore, the Court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2002-03-06 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 01-7966

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Mario Ballard's appeal of the district court's denial of his motion to amend his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 petition and motion for declaratory judgment. The district court had previously dismissed Ballard's § 2254 petition without prejudice. The Court of Appeals found that Ballard's latest motions were essentially motions for reconsideration of the denial of his § 2254 petition, but provided no grounds for reconsideration. Therefore, the Court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

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

    Ballard v. True, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Mario Ballard's appeal of the district court's denial of his motion to amend his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 petition and motion for declaratory judgment. The district court had previously dismissed Ballard's § 2254 petition without prejudice. The Court of Appeals found that Ballard's latest motions were essentially motions for reconsideration of the denial of his § 2254 petition, but provided no grounds for reconsideration. Therefore, the Court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    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. 01-7966

    MARIO L. BALLARD,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    PAGE TRUE, Warden,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District
    Judge. (CA-01-380-7)

    Submitted:

    February 21, 2002

    Decided:

    March 6, 2002

    Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Mario Ballard, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Mario Ballard appeals the district courts order denying
    relief on his motion to amend his 28 U.S.C.A. 2254 (West 1994 &
    Supp. 2001) petition and his motion for declaratory judgment.
    district
    petition.

    court

    dismissed

    without

    prejudice

    Ballards

    The
    2254

    Ballards motion to amend and motion for declaratory

    relief essentially are the latest in a series of motions for reconsideration of the district courts denial of his 2254 petition.
    Because Ballard has stated no grounds for reconsideration, we deny
    a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

    United

    States v. Williams, 674 F.2d 310, 313 (4th Cir. 1982) (no relief
    warranted when motion for reconsideration merely asks district
    court to change its mind).

    Ballards motion for en banc hearing is

    denied. 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