Phillip Morris Pugh v. Edward W. Murray

Fourth Circuit

Phillip Morris Pugh v. Edward W. Murray

21 F.3d 423, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 15877, 1994 WL 132152

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedApril 15, 1994

Docket93-6870

StatusPublished

This text of 21 F.3d 423 (Phillip Morris Pugh v. 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

Phillip Morris Pugh v. Edward W. Murray, 21 F.3d 423, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 15877, 1994 WL 132152 (4th Cir. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

21 F.3d 423
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Phillip Morris PUGH, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Edward W. MURRAY, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 93-6870.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 31, 1994.
Decided April 15, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Chief District Judge. (CA-92-816-AM)

Phillips Morris Pugh, Appellant Pro Se.

E.D.Va.

DISMISSED.

Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

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. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Pugh v. Murray, No. CA-92-816-AM (E.D. Va. June 15, 1992).1 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.2

DISMISSED

1

We note that Pugh's ineffective assistance claims fail the test of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). Pugh's remaining claims are procedurally barred either by his failure to present the issues in his first state habeas petition, Va.Code Ann. Sec. 8.01-654(B)(2) (Michie 1992), or by his failure to object at trial and raise the issues on direct appeal. Slayton v. Parrigan, 205 S.E.2d 680 (Va.1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1108 (1975)

2

We grant Pugh leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this Court

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

21 F.3d 423
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.

Phillip Morris PUGH, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Edward W. MURRAY, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 93-6870.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 31, 1994.
Decided April 15, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Chief District Judge. (CA-92-816-AM)

Phillips Morris Pugh, Appellant Pro Se.

E.D.Va.

DISMISSED.

Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

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. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Pugh v. Murray, No. CA-92-816-AM (E.D. Va. June 15, 1992).1 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.2

DISMISSED

1

We note that Pugh's ineffective assistance claims fail the test of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). Pugh's remaining claims are procedurally barred either by his failure to present the issues in his first state habeas petition, Va.Code Ann. Sec. 8.01-654(B)(2) (Michie 1992), or by his failure to object at trial and raise the issues on direct appeal. Slayton v. Parrigan, 205 S.E.2d 680 (Va.1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1108 (1975)

2

We grant Pugh leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this Court

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 F.3d 423, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 15877, 1994 WL 132152, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/phillip-morris-pugh-v-edward-w-murray-ca4-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack