Everett King, Jr. v. G.E. Dean Edward W. Murray

Fourth Circuit

Everett King, Jr. v. G.E. Dean Edward W. Murray

955 F.2d 41, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 9003, 1992 WL 29295

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 21, 1992

Docket91-7305

StatusUnpublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 955 F.2d 41 (Everett King, Jr. v. G.E. Dean Edward W. Murray) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Everett King, Jr. v. G.E. Dean Edward W. Murray, 955 F.2d 41, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 9003, 1992 WL 29295 (4th Cir. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

955 F.2d 41

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Everett KING, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
G.E. DEAN; Edward W. Murray, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 91-7305.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 17, 1992.
Decided Feb. 21, 1992.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Chief District Judge. (CA-91-385-R)

Everett King, Jr., appellant pro se.

Robert Quentin Harris, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Va., for appellees.

W.D.Va.

DISMISSED.

Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Everett King seeks to appeal the district court's order refusing habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988). Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. King v. Dean, No. CA-91-385-R (W.D.Va. Sept. 5, 1991).* 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.

*

We note that King's ineffective assistance claim fails the test of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). His remaining claims are procedurally barred not by his failure to present these issues in his first state habeas petition, but by his failure contemporaneously to object or to otherwise raise the issues before the trial court, see Va.Sup.Ct.Rules 5:25 5A:18; Slayton v. Parrigan, 205 S.E.2d 680 (Va.1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1108 (1975), and his failure to file a timely new trial motion, see Va.Sup.Ct.Rule 1:1

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

955 F.2d 41

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.
Everett KING, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
G.E. DEAN; Edward W. Murray, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 91-7305.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 17, 1992.
Decided Feb. 21, 1992.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Chief District Judge. (CA-91-385-R)

Everett King, Jr., appellant pro se.

Robert Quentin Harris, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Va., for appellees.

W.D.Va.

DISMISSED.

Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Everett King seeks to appeal the district court's order refusing habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988). Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. King v. Dean, No. CA-91-385-R (W.D.Va. Sept. 5, 1991).* 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.

*

We note that King's ineffective assistance claim fails the test of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). His remaining claims are procedurally barred not by his failure to present these issues in his first state habeas petition, but by his failure contemporaneously to object or to otherwise raise the issues before the trial court, see Va.Sup.Ct.Rules 5:25 5A:18; Slayton v. Parrigan, 205 S.E.2d 680 (Va.1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1108 (1975), and his failure to file a timely new trial motion, see Va.Sup.Ct.Rule 1:1

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

955 F.2d 41, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 9003, 1992 WL 29295, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/everett-king-jr-v-ge-dean-edward-w-murray-ca4-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack