Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Roulhac v. Baskerville, 4th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views2 pages
    Clarence Roulhac Jr. appealed the district court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. As such, the Fourth Circuit denied Roulhac a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the district court's reasoning for denying the habeas petition. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral arguments, finding the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2001-02-08 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 00-7637

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Clarence Roulhac Jr. appealed the district court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. As such, the Fourth Circuit denied Roulhac a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the district court's reasoning for denying the habeas petition. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral arguments, finding the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

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

    Roulhac v. Baskerville, 4th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Clarence Roulhac Jr. appealed the district court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. As such, the Fourth Circuit denied Roulhac a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the district court's reasoning for denying the habeas petition. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral arguments, finding the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented in the case materials.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 00-7637

    CLARENCE ROULHAC, JR.,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    ALTON BASKERVILLE, Warden,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-00-160)

    Submitted:

    January 23, 2001

    Decided:

    February 8, 2001

    Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Clarence Roulhac, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Richard Bain Smith, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Clarence Roulhac, Jr., seeks to appeal 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 dis-

    trict courts opinion and find no reversible error.

    Accordingly,

    we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on


    the reasoning of the district court.

    See Roulhac v. Baskerville,

    No. CA-00-160 (E.D. Va. Nov. 3, 2000).

    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