Roger Allison v. Warden, Bland Correctional Center, David S. Anderson v. Warden, Bland Correctional Center

59 F.3d 165, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 23225
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJune 22, 1995
Docket95-6093
StatusPublished

This text of 59 F.3d 165 (Roger Allison v. Warden, Bland Correctional Center, David S. Anderson v. Warden, Bland Correctional Center) 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
Roger Allison v. Warden, Bland Correctional Center, David S. Anderson v. Warden, Bland Correctional Center, 59 F.3d 165, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 23225 (4th Cir. 1995).

Opinion

59 F.3d 165
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Roger ALLISON, Petitioner--Appellant,
v.
WARDEN, Bland Correctional Center, Respondent--Appellee.
David S. ANDERSON, Petitioner--Appellant,
v.
WARDEN, Bland Correctional Center, Respondent--Appellee.

Nos. 95-6093, 95-6118.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 21, 1995.
Decided: June 22, 1995.

Roger Allison, David S. Anderson, Appellants Pro Se.

W.D.Va.

DISMISSED.

Before HALL and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Appellants seek to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on their 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 (1988) petitions. We have reviewed the records and the district court's opinions, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Allison v. Warden, No. CA-95-5; Anderson v. Warden, No. CA-95-30-R (W.D.Va. Jan. 12, 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.

*

We deny Allison's motion to compel

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
59 F.3d 165, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 23225, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roger-allison-v-warden-bland-correctional-center-d-ca4-1995.