James Eugene Venable v. Ellis B. Wright, Warden

Fourth Circuit

James Eugene Venable v. Ellis B. Wright, Warden

59 F.3d 168, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 23204, 1995 WL 375876

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJune 26, 1995

Docket95-6278

StatusPublished

This text of 59 F.3d 168 (James Eugene Venable v. Ellis B. Wright, Warden) 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

James Eugene Venable v. Ellis B. Wright, Warden, 59 F.3d 168, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 23204, 1995 WL 375876 (4th Cir. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

59 F.3d 168
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

James Eugene VENABLE, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Ellis B. WRIGHT, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 95-6278.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 18, 1995.
Decided June 26, 1995.

James Eugene Venable, appellant pro se. Robert B. Condon, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, VA, for appellee.

Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the magistrate judge's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 (1988) petition.* We have reviewed the record and the magistrate judge's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the magistrate judge. Venable v. Wright, No. CA-94-576-3 (E.D. Va. Jan. 10, 1995). 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

*

The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636(c) (1988)

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

59 F.3d 168
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

James Eugene VENABLE, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Ellis B. WRIGHT, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 95-6278.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 18, 1995.
Decided June 26, 1995.

James Eugene Venable, appellant pro se. Robert B. Condon, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, VA, for appellee.

Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the magistrate judge's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 (1988) petition.* We have reviewed the record and the magistrate judge's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the magistrate judge. Venable v. Wright, No. CA-94-576-3 (E.D. Va. Jan. 10, 1995). 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

*

The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636(c) (1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 F.3d 168, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 23204, 1995 WL 375876, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-eugene-venable-v-ellis-b-wright-warden-ca4-1995.