John R. Binns v. Pat Edge, Warden

54 F.3d 772, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 17364, 1995 WL 310175
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedMay 22, 1995
Docket94-6255
StatusPublished

This text of 54 F.3d 772 (John R. Binns v. Pat Edge, 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
John R. Binns v. Pat Edge, Warden, 54 F.3d 772, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 17364, 1995 WL 310175 (4th Cir. 1995).

Opinion

54 F.3d 772
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

John R. BINNS, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Pat EDGE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 94-6255.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 24, 1995.
Decided: May 22, 1995.

John R. Binns, Appellant Pro Se.

Linwood Theodore Wells, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, VA, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 (1988) petition. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. We note that even if Appellant's acquittal on the assault and battery charges was based upon the failure of the government to prove that he was the assailant, collateral estoppel would not bar the government from presenting evidence that Appellant was the perpetrator of the burglary and grand larceny. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Binns v. Edge, No. CA-93-759 (E.D. Va. Feb. 7, 1994). 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

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
54 F.3d 772, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 17364, 1995 WL 310175, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-r-binns-v-pat-edge-warden-ca4-1995.