Bruce v. Wright

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-6685

THOMAS EDWARD BRUCE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

ELLIS B. WRIGHT,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. B. Waugh Crigler, Magistrate Judge. (CA-93-232-R)

Submitted: December 14, 1995 Decided: January 4, 1996

Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas Edward Bruce, Appellant Pro Se. John H. McLees, Jr., 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) petition. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to

appeal and dismiss the appeal substantially on the reasoning of the district court. Bruce v. Wright, No. CA-93-232-R (W.D. Va. Mar. 30, 1995). Two of Appellant's claims involved state evidentiary mat-

ters, which are not generally the basis for federal habeas relief.

Chance v. Garrison, 537 F.2d 1212, 1215 (4th Cir. 1976). Some of Appellant's claims were not presented to the state court, so those

claims are defaulted. Further, the state court found several of

Appellant's claims procedurally barred, and he has not shown cause and prejudice or actual innocence to overcome the bar. Murray v.

Carrier, 477 U.S. 478 (1986). Finally, Appellant did not establish

ineffective assistance of counsel warranting habeas relief. Strick- land v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984). 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